MIAMI UNIVSERSITY
The Graduate School
Certificate for Approving the Dissertation
We hereby approve the Dissertation
of
Robin L. Graff-Reed
Candidate for the Degree:
Doctor of Philosophy
__________________________________
Karen Maitland Schilling, Ph.D., Chair
__________________________________
Carl E. Paternite, Ph.D., reader
__________________________________
Margaret O’Dougherty Wright, Ph.D., reader
__________________________________
Glenn Stone, Ph.D., reader
Graduate School Representative
ABSTRACT
POSITIVE EFFECTS OF STRESSFUL LIFE EVENTS: PSYCHOLOGICAL GROWTH
FOLLOWING DIVORCE
By Robin L. Graff-Reed
The purpose of this study was to a) validate and compare single and multi-factor models of
the posttraumatic psychological growth construct, b) clarify the relationship between postdivorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth, and c) examine the effects of
social support and coping styles on post-divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological
growth, including gender differences. One hundred-forty participants completed
questionnaires measuring demographic variables as well as appraised stress, perceived social
support, coping styles, adjustment to divorce, and posttraumatic psychological growth.
Factor analyses confirmed the multi-dimensional structure of the Post-Traumatic Growth
Inventory (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) and the uni-dimensional structure of the StressRelated Growth Scale (Park, Cohen & Murch, 1996). Hierarchical regression analyses were
conducted to examine the contributions of factors to the prediction of successful postdivorce adjustment and posttraumatic growth. Gender, education level, emotional stability,
agreement with the custody decision, and perceived social support predicted both dependent
measures. Appraised stress and coping style also predicted divorce adjustment. The number
of years since the divorce and counseling related to divorce moderated the effect of
appraised stress on divorce adjustment. A new relationship moderated the effect of
appraised stress on posttraumatic growth. Perceived social support mediated the effect of
independent variables on both dependent variables. Women reported higher levels of
perceived social support than men, and also reported higher levels of posttraumatic growth
following divorce. Domains of post-divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological
growth were compared and a model of adjustment and growth is proposed. Implications for
further research on posttraumatic growth and post-divorce adjustment are discussed.
Understanding the complex interactions between the individual, social, and divorce
characteristics that influence post-divorce adjustment and subsequent posttraumatic growth
may enhance clinicians’ interventions with this population. Continued research in the area
of posttraumatic psychological growth will shed important light on the origins, development,
and maintenance of mental throughout the lifespan.
POSITIVE EFFECTS OF STRESSFUL LIFE EVENTS:
PSYCHOLOGICAL GROWTH FOLLOWING DIVORCE
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the Faculty of
Miami University in partial
fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Psychology
By
Robin L. Graff-Reed
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio
2004
Dissertation Director: Karen Maitland Schilling
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of tables…………………………………………………………………………iii
List of figures………………………………………………………………………...iv
Introduction…………………………………………….…………………..………...1
Adjustment to Divorce……………………….………………………..……..2
Posttraumatic Psychological Growth…………...……………………………7
Post-Divorce Adjustment and Posttraumatic Psychological Growth ………16
Summary…………………………………………………………………… 22
Hypotheses……………………………………………………………….… 24
Method………………………………………………………………………………26
Participants…………………………………………………………….…
.26
Procedure……………………………………………….……………………27
Measures…………………………………………………………………….28
Results……………………………………………………………………………….32
Statistical Analyses………………………………………………………….32
Correlations…………………………………….………………………… 34
Regression Analyses………………………………………………………...34
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………...44
Individual and Event Characteristics as Predictors of Post-Divorce
Adjustment and Growth……………………………………………..44
Comparing Divorce Adjustment and Posttraumatic Growth………………..60
Examining the Construct of Posttraumatic Growth…………………………62
Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Directions……………………………64
References…………………………………………………………………….…….. 68
Tables………………………………………………………………………….……. 75
Figures………………………………………………………………………………..94
Appendices…………………………………………………………………….……101
ii
List of Tables
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Quantitative Variables
Table 2
Factor Loadings of 21 Items of the Post-traumatic Growth Inventory
Table 3
Correlations Between Demographic, Moderating, Mediating, and Dependent
Variables
Table 4
Correlations Between Divorce Adjustment Scales and Subjective Adjustment
Table 5
Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Post-Divorce
Adjustment and Posttraumatic Psychological Growth
Table 6
Significance of the Mediation of Social Support Between Independent
Variables and Divorce Adjustment and Posttraumatic Psychological Growth
Table 7
Mean Scores on the Divorce Adjustment Scale for Participants at each Year
Since Divorce and Differences between Means
Table 8
Multiple Regressions of Divorce Adjustment and Posttraumatic
Psychological Growth on Appraised Stress and Intervening Variables
Table 9
Descriptive Statistics and Significance of Interaction for ANOVA Between
Appraised Stress and Moderating Variables on Dependent Measures
Table 10
Descriptive Statistics and T-Tests between Genders on Social Support and
Coping Measures
Table 11
Descriptive Statistics and Significance of Interaction for ANOVA Between
Gender and Social Support on Dependent Measures
Table 12
Descriptive Statistics and Significance of Interaction for ANOVA Between
Gender and Relationship Status on Dependent Measures
Table 13
Descriptive Statistics and Significance of Interaction for ANOVA Between
Social Support and New Relationship Status on Dependent Measures
Table 14
Descriptive Statistics and Significance of Interaction for ANOVA Between
Gender and Divorce Factors on Dependent Measures
Table 15
Correlations Between Divorce Adjustment Scale and Post-Traumatic Growth
Inventory Dimensions
Table 16
Significance of the Mediation between Independent Variables and Divorce
Adjustment and Posttraumatic Psychological Growth.
Table 17
Descriptive Statistics of Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory Domains
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1
Hypothesized model of post-divorce adjustment and posttraumatic
psychological growth.
Figure 2
Interaction of Appraised Stress and Time Elapsed Since Divorce on Divorce
Adjustment.
Figure 3
Interaction of Appraised Stress and Relationship on Post-Traumatic Growth
Figure 4
Interaction of Appraised Stress and Counseling on Divorce Adjustment
Figure 5
Mediating Effects of Social Support Factors on Divorce Adjustment and
Posttraumatic Psychological Growth.
Figure 6
Mediating Effects of Coping Factors on Divorce Adjustment and
Posttraumatic Psychological Growth.
Figure 7
Revised model of post-divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological
growth.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The successful completion of this dissertation was made possible with the continued
support and encouragement of several individuals. First, I would like to express my sincere
appreciation to my director, Karen Maitland Schilling, for her consistent dedication to this
study and for her thoughtful revisions and suggestions. Her knowledge, expertise, insight,
encouragement, and patience were felt throughout all phases of this research. In addition,
I’d like to offer many thanks to my committee members, Carl Paternite, Margaret
O’Dougherty Wright, and Glenn Stone, for their insightful contributions and suggestions for
challenging me to think in new and innovative ways.
I’d like to express my gratitude to Jane Groh and Mary Anne Rose of the Warren
County Mental Health and Recovery Centers for suggestions and assistance in recruiting
participants for this study. I would also like to thank Linda Sandlin at the Miami University
Mailroom and Amy Wilms in the Psychology Clinic for their invaluable assistance in
preparing and mailing the surveys.
Finally, I’d like to express my sincere gratitude to the family and friends, especially
my husband Richard Reed, who provided me emotional support and encouragement during
the past several years. Their patience, understanding, and support have been vital to my
growth and development throughout this process.
v
Positive Effects of Stressful Life Events:
Psychological Growth Following Divorce
“When we are no longer able to change a situation…we are challenged to change ourselves.”
Viktor Frankl, 1963
With the increasing prevalence of divorce within American society, recent attention
has turned to the impact of this major life stressor on the individual. Few other events carry
the emotional, financial, and social implications of divorce. While theorists and clinicians
agree that successful resolution of the divorce process involves making use of new options,
moving forward, and adjusting to redefined life roles (Stewart, Copeland, Chester, Malley &
Barenbaum, 1997), post-divorce adjustment has often been defined as the absence of
psychological symptoms, or a return to pre-divorce levels of functioning. The measures
typically encountered in research focus on the extent of experienced distress in terms of
physical and emotional symptoms, and/or perceptions of one’s functioning (Guttmann,
1993).
Many early divorce studies examined variables in an atheoretical manner or used
simple models assessing only a few factors. While these studies have helped identify some
factors associated with post-divorce adjustment, few have captured the complexity or
process of post-divorce adjustment. And since positive outcomes were rarely looked for,
they were often dismissed or overlooked as part of the developmental sequelae of divorce.
Recent models, however, have conceptualized a more interactive process and also allow for
positive outcomes—including psychological growth.
As with divorce, in the literature on stress and coping there is overwhelming
evidence that any traumatic and stressful event can produce many negative physical and
psychological consequences. For some individuals, however, a traumatic or stressful
experience can serve as a catalyst for positive change, a chance to reexamine life priorities
or develop strong ties with friends and family. As Aldwin (1994) points out, any crisis
provides opportunities for development and growth through the re-evaluation of one’s
identity, one’s priorities, and one’s relationships.
Although researchers have extensively studied the negative effects of stress and
trauma, there has been much less attention paid to the positive impact of negative events. A
recent trend in this literature, however, is the inclusion of reports of positive outcomes or
growth resulting from coping with stress (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995; Folkman, 1997).
Despite the progress in this research, several questions remain to be explored. Do
some experiences typically lead to negative outcomes, whereas others contribute to the
development of positive changes? What psychological processes appear to mediate these
outcomes? How do positive outcomes relate to measures of negative adjustment?
Updegraff & Taylor (2000) highlight the need to respond to some of these questions.
The objective of this study is to address the questions posed by Updegraff & Taylor
(2000) as well as others, examining both the validity and dimensionality of posttraumatic
psychological growth within the context of the divorce process. Of particular interest is the
relationship among growth dimensions and the domains of adjustment typically attributed to
divorce in previous research; therefore, this study will examine several factors both for
commonalities and/or differences. It is also important to understand growth and adjustment
as a function of available resources and power differentials. A final focus of this study will
be on differences in growth and adjustment between men and women.
This paper will begin by summarizing theoretical models of divorce, then will
discuss the concept of posttraumatic psychological growth. Of particular interest in this
study are the roles of social support and coping style in both divorce adjustment and
posttraumatic psychological growth; therefore, the following also includes a discussion of
both issues, with a focus on gender differences found in the literature.
Adjustment to Divorce
Comparing Divorce to Other Life Stressors. With the increasing prevalence of
divorce within American society, there has been a growing focus on the impact of this major
life stressor on the individual. Divorce forces people to make significant adjustments in
their lives. Despite the fact that many of the stressors experienced by individuals going
through a divorce do not differ qualitatively from other life stressors, what makes this
process unique is the simultaneous occurrence of changes in many areas of one’s life within
a short period of time (Pledge, 1992).
Divorce may involve multiple crises of identity, self-worth, finances, lifestyle, child
rearing, and life-goals. Amato (2000) summarizes multiple studies that found that compared
to married individuals, divorced individuals experience lower levels of psychological well2
being, lower happiness, more symptoms of psychological distress, and poorer self-concepts.
Divorced individuals also experience more health problems and a greater risk of mortality
than those who are married.
An ongoing discussion within the divorce literature relates to the use and meaning of
the very general term adjustment. The outcome measures typically encountered in the
research focus on the extent of experienced distress in terms of physical and emotional
symptoms, and/or perceptions of one’s functioning (Guttmann, 1993). Therefore,
adjustment may be indicated by being relatively free of signs or symptoms of physical or
mental illness; being able to function adequately in the daily role responsibilities of home,
family, work, and leisure; and having developed an identity unrelated to the ex-spouse or the
status of being married. As noted earlier, adjustment as “return to the status quo” has been
the prevailing sentiment in the divorce literature, with little previous consideration of the
positive benefits of divorce.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of the negative effects of divorce, Booth &
Amato (1991) found that most divorced people show a pre-divorce rise in stress followed by
a return to previous levels after about two years. Hetherington & Kelly (2002) found that
for most people “divorce was like a speed bump in the road. It caused a lot of tumult while
the person was going over it, but failed to leave a lasting impression—either positive or
negative.” Twenty years following divorce, most people are functioning much as they did
before the divorce, and are presumably no worse off for the experience.
As noted above, in the majority of divorce studies, successful adjustment has been
largely equated with the return to pre-divorce levels of stress, self-esteem, and psychological
functioning. However, if the measures used in assessing post-divorce recovery address only
the absence of psychological symptoms and return to base-line levels of functioning, an
important aspect of adjustment – the experience of psychological growth – may be
overlooked.
In order to establish a context for the phenomenon of psychological growth
following divorce, it might be helpful to first review the divorce literature summarizing
factors related to adjustment, and then examine models of divorce adjustment that allow for
psychological growth as an outcome.
3
Factors Related to Post-Divorce Adjustment. The divorce literature identifies
factors that contribute to the resiliency of adults faced with divorce, and they parallel the
factors contributing to coping in general. A person’s ability to reestablish psychological
balance following a crisis derives from the combined influence of many variables.
Successful adjustment relates to having some basic attitudes and skills, such as developing a
positive view of change as an opportunity over which we have control and responsibility,
building support networks, managing stress constructively, solving problems, and appraising
potential danger (Brammer, 1991). Demographic factors that have been shown to relate to
adjustment are age, gender, education, financial resources and socioeconomic status (Pledge,
1992; Zavoina, 1996). Personality characteristics that have been linked to divorce
adjustment are attachment style (Birnbaum, Orr, Mikulincer, & Florian, 1997), self-esteem
and self-efficacy (Zavoina, 1996), personal competence, extroversion, and social maturity
(Kurdek & Blisk, 1983), and hope and optimism (O’Leary, Franzoni, Brack, & Zirps, 1996).
In addition, coping strategies that have been demonstrated to contribute to post-divorce
adjustment are past experience in dealing with stress, and the availability of support systems
(Guttmann, 1993; Sansom & Farnill, 1997). Present relationship status has also been found
to relate to post-divorce adjustment (Thabes, 1997; Graff, 2001).
Although many of the concerns related to divorce are similar for men and women,
there is some difference in the way men and women cope with divorce, and in which factors
seem to contribute best to an individual’s ability to adapt and adjust (Amato, 2000). Though
some studies have specifically addressed gender differences in post-divorce adjustment, few
have sought to explain these differences in terms of an overall conceptual model of
adjustment, nor have they attempted to examine the various factors related to these gender
differences. One possible explanation for the mixed findings regarding gender differences is
that many studies rely on global measures of well-being that do not adequately discriminate
between various areas of life that may be affected differently by divorce, or at different
times during the divorce process.
For example, losing custody of the children often represents one of the most stressful
aspects of post-divorce life for men (Jacobs, 1986; Stone, 2001). Graff (2001) investigated
the impact of custody status on the psychological well-being of divorced parents. Results
indicated a significant interaction between gender and custody status; men with joint
4
custody reported more positive adjustment than men who were non-custodial parents, while
custody status did not effect the adjustment of women.
For women, financial worries, loneliness, and lack of education or career seem to be
the most critical stressors (Myers, 1989; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). Many women,
especially those who married at a young age, do not develop a professional and social
identity separate from their mates. They therefore lack points of reference that might allow
them to promote self-esteem outside the framework of marriage (Guttmann, 1993). Women
generally report more stress at the time of the initial separation, while men report more
stress later in the adjustment process (Spanier & Thompson, 1984). Studies that specifically
examine gender effects may be helpful in understanding the varying adjustment of men and
women.
Theoretical Models of the Divorce Process. One explanation for the diversity of
variables thought to be related to divorce adjustment is that divorce itself is a complex
cultural, social, legal, economic, and psychological process. Within the past decade, an
increasing number of studies have examined predictors of adults’ adjustment after divorce,
with varying results. Most of these studies have been exploratory or have worked within a
narrow theoretical framework that predicted adjustment from one or a few demographic
and/or pre-divorce factors (Tschann, Johnston, & Wallerstein, 1989).
More recently, studies have begun using broader conceptual approaches. An
example of such an approach is the family stress and coping model described by McCubbin
and Patterson (1982). The Double ABCX model takes into account both pre-crisis and postcrisis factors and also allows for the presence of mediating and moderating factors. The
model predicts adaptation (X) after a crisis event from the (A) pileup of demands, the (B)
personal and social resources available or developed to meet the demands of the crisis, and
(C) the individual or family’s perception of the situation. The model predicts that the
individual’s resources and perceptions partially buffer the effects of stressors and strains.
The particular value of the Double ABCX model is that it addresses in detail the potential
differences among individuals at each point, allowing for moderating and mediating factors
as well as multiple outcomes, including positive benefits (Ahrons & Rodgers, 1987).
In a similar model described by Amato (2000), the Divorce-Stress-Adjustment
perspective defines the stressors particular to divorce as mediating factors. These stressors
5
may include discord between former spouses, loss of emotional support, disruptions in
parent-child relationships, economic hardship, and other negative life events, such as
moving. The protective factors that ameliorate the effect of the stressors on adjustment
include individual coping skills, as well as interpersonal and structural resources such as
education and employment, social support, and support from a new partner.
Also considered a mediating factor is an individual’s definition or meaning of the
divorce and its effects. This factor appears to be understudied, though it carries with it
important ramifications (Amato, 2000). For example, lower income following divorce is
typically considered a stress-inducing situation mediating poor adjustment. However, for a
woman who now has more control over her own decisions regarding her finances, lower
income may be viewed as a positive change. Similarly, Gray and Silver (1990) found that
the perception of control over the divorce process had a positive effect on divorce
adjustment. Wang & Amato (2000) used longitudinal data to examine the role of attitudes
toward divorce in predicting adjustment, confirming that the meaning assigned to specific
aspects of the divorce moderated the effect of stressors on recovery.
In both the Double ABCX model and the Divorce-Stress-Adjustment perspective,
moderators and mediators introduce variability into the manner in which divorce and
stressors are linked to personal outcome. As a result of the particular configuration of
moderating and mediating factors, some individuals are resilient and others are vulnerable
following divorce, resulting in a diversity of outcomes (Booth & Amato, 1991).
Though the organization is slightly different, it should be noted that these models
overlap considerably with the model of the coping process described by Holohan, Moos, and
Schaefer (1996). The Divorce-Stress-Adjustment perspective offers the advantage of more
clearly specifying mediating vs. moderating factors, allowing for more precise statistical
analysis.
Positive Effects of Divorce. Both the Double ABCX model and the Divorce-StressAdjustment model assume that divorce increases the risk of negative outcomes; for most
people, the ending of a marriage is a stressful experience, even if much of the stress is
temporary. Nevertheless, these models allow for the presence of both negative and positive
outcomes following divorce.
6
The typically painful, permanent rupture of a relationship that is signaled by divorce
often foreshadows positive life changes. Several studies show that divorced individuals
report higher levels of autonomy and personal growth than do married individuals (Kitson,
1992; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Riessman (1990) found that women reported more selfconfidence and a stronger sense of control following divorce, and men reported more
interpersonal skills and a greater willingness to self-disclose. Hetherington & Kelly (2002)
reported in their 20-year study of post-divorce adjustment that approximately 30% of adults
flourished because of the things that had happened to them during and after divorce, not
despite them. “Competencies that would have remained latent if they had stayed in a
marriage were fostered by the urgent need to overcome the challenges of divorce.”
Many more examples exist of individuals who report improvements in the quality of
their lives and in their psychological functioning as a result of successfully adapting and
adjusting to divorce, though these findings are largely anecdotal and incidental. If more
studies explicitly searched for positive outcomes, then the number of studies documenting
beneficial effects of divorce would almost certainly be larger (Amato, 2000). While it is not
appropriate to discontinue the study of the negative impact of major life stressors, a shift in
perspective is needed, so that psychological growth is recognized as a routine possibility
when individuals struggle with highly disruptive life events, including divorce (Calhoun &
Tedeschi, 1998).
Posttraumatic Psychological Growth
Defining Posttraumatic Psychological Growth. Stressful life events come in many
forms and can have a devastating impact on those who experience them. Stressful events
may take the form of personal trauma such as illness or injury, interpersonal trauma such as
bereavement or divorce, or natural or man-made disasters such as floods or terrorist acts.
Overwhelmingly, the clinical literature provides evidence that traumatic and stressful events
can produce many negative physical and psychological consequences. Depression, anxiety,
and in extreme cases, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are among the negative effects of
stressful life events. Research focused solely on documenting distress and dysfunction,
however, may paint an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of adjustment
following stressful events (Updegraff & Taylor, 2000).
7
For some individuals, a traumatic or stressful experience can serve as a catalyst for
positive change. As Aldwin (1994) points out, any crisis provides opportunities for
development and growth through the re-evaluation of one’s identify, one’s priorities, and
one’s relationships. Although relatively understudied in comparison to the negative effects,
the positive effects of stressful life events have increasingly come under the scrutiny of
theorists and researchers (Updegraff & Taylor, 2000).
According to theories of evolution and adaptation, change is a necessary aspect of
life. Evolution teaches us that change is not only a common occurrence, but is key to our
survival. The possibility of positive change in the struggle with major life crises has been
present in the writings of the ancient Greeks and early Christians to modern philosophers
and social scientists (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995). However, it has only been in recent years
that systematic attempts have begun to be made by psychologists and other researchers to
understand, assess, and investigate this phenomenon.
The movement toward the study of positive psychology exemplifies this trend. The
aim of positive psychology is to emphasize that psychology is not just the study of
pathology, weakness, and damage; it is also the study of strength and virtue. Treatment is
not just fixing what is broken; it is nurturing what is best. This changing emphasis exhorts
psychologists to focus preventive methods toward systematically building competency, not
only on correcting weakness (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
While the systematic study of psychological growth following trauma is relatively
new, related fields have recognized the phenomenon for years. The concept of hardiness is
defined as the tendency to struggle adaptively with life’s adversities by perceiving
potentially stressful events in less threatening terms (Kobasa, 1979). Preliminary research
into the relationship between hardiness and positive effects of stressful events has focused
on the links between personality processes and psychological growth (Britt, Adler, &
Bartone, 2001).
Many investigators have also documented the resilience of children able to overcome
the multiple risks in harsh environmental, social, and familial conditions. Resilience refers
to a dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of significant
adversity (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000). Research has also focused on resilient adults
(Wright, 1998), confirming some of the key characteristics of resilient individuals.
8
The great surprise of resilience research is the ordinariness of the phenomena.
Resilience appears to be a common phenomenon that results in most cases from the
operation of basic human adaptational systems (Masten, 2001). Nevertheless, a
methodological limitation to the work on resilience is the focus on the absence of
psychopathology or a low level of symptoms and impairment as the criterion for resilience,
rather than the presence of achievements (Kaplan, 1999).
More recently, others have gone beyond a focus on those who adapt to stress, to
examine those who exceed previous levels of functioning following stressful or traumatic
events. This experience of flourishing following a life crisis has been termed “thriving”
(O’Leary & Ickovics, 1995), “benefit-finding” (Affleck & Tennen, 1996), “transformational
coping” (Aldwin, 1994), “posttraumatic growth (PTG)” (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995), or
“stress-related growth (SRG)” (Park, Cohen & Murch, 1996).
Though the phenomenon has been related to the presence of trauma, the level of
stressfulness of such trauma varies a great deal between individuals and types of events.
Since the degree of impact and its relationship to growth remain a focus of investigation, for
the purposes of this study the term “posttraumatic psychological growth” will be used.
Defining stressful events. A traumatic event is often defined as one that has a
seismic impact on the individual’s worldview and emotional functioning. A traumatic
event produces a severe shaking up, or often shattering, of the individual’s understanding of
the world (Janoff-Bulman, 1992) and creates a significant increase in emotional distress.
These traumas call into question the basic assumptions about one’s future and how to move
toward that future. Inherent in these traumatic experiences are losses, such as the loss of
loved ones, of cherished roles or capabilities, or of fundamental ways of understanding life.
In the face of these losses, some people rebuild a way of life that they experience as
superior to their old one. The criterion for significant trauma is the degree to which events
have been seismic for the individual, taking into account the person’s response within the
context of his or her environment in a transactional view (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995).
Included in these broad parameters are events that may be life threatening, such as combat
or personal assault, as well as events that are more common yet still emotionally
overwhelming, such as a diagnosis of cancer, losing a job, or divorce. Despite the negative
9
impact of stressful events, positive outcomes are quite common; more than 50% of people
who experience life crises report some benefits from them (Schaefer & Moos, 1992).
A transactional view of trauma would seem to argue against specific criteria for what
makes an event traumatic; however, several characteristics have been identified throughout
the literature as contributing to the perceived stressfulness of an event. These event
characteristics include, but are not limited to, the controllability of the event, the
predictability and suddenness, the level of threat, the amount of loss involved, the
individual’s proximity to the event or the centrality, and the assignment of blame to others
for one’s misfortune (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 1999).
There is some evidence that increased appraisal of the stressfulness of an event is
related to increased reports of posttraumatic psychological growth (Tedeschi & Calhoun,
1996; Park et al., 1996; Armeli, Gunthert, & Cohen, 2001). Calhoun & Tedeschi (1998)
suggest that a minimum threshold of stress may need to be crossed before events can have
sufficient power to produce the level of subjective disruption necessary for posttraumatic
psychological growth to occur. This is a promising direction for future research.
Defining Growth. Across the studies that have examined the benefits that people
perceive as resulting from severely stressful life events, three important and consistent
domains of change have appeared. The current research suggests that individuals report the
following: change in relationships with others, change in the sense of self, and change in
philosophy of life (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995).
Posttraumatic psychological growth can involve an experience of deepening of
relationships, increased compassion and sympathy for others, and greater ease at expressing
emotions. The change in self-perception may include an increased sense of vulnerability,
but an increased experience of oneself as capable and self-reliant. Finally, some individuals
report a greater appreciation for life, a changed set of life priorities, and positive changes in
religious, spiritual, or existential matters (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996).
While there is consensus that these changes are, in fact, positively valued, the
question remains whether these positive outcomes can or should be labeled “growth.”
The term “growth” implies a unidirectional path, a progressive development or evolution
that involves increase and expansion of some fundamental characteristic. Growth might be
10
conceptualized as involving observable behavioral changes, changes in adaptive ability, and
changes in perspective that are enduring and persist across multiple life domains.
This raises the issue of the degree to which posttraumatic psychological growth
involves anything more than the individual’s perception of change, or whether growth also
involves changes in observable behavior. There is some evidence that self-reports of growth
may be modestly correlated with reports from other persons (Park et al., 1996). However,
there is not enough information to conclude that posttraumatic growth involves clear and
observable changes in how the person continues to function years after the traumatic event
has occurred. To date, only a few studies have linked these reported changes to behavioral
outcomes (Taylor, Lichtman, & Wood, 1984) or to corroborated perceptions of behavioral
change by friends or relatives (Park et al., 1996).
One of the most intriguing questions regarding posttraumatic psychological growth
is whether it may facilitate more adaptive coping for individuals in the future. Although this
idea is a primary assumption in many psychological theories of development, very little
empirical research has actually put this idea to the test. Some models of coping, such as the
deviation amplification model (Aldwin, 1994) support the idea that positive changes from
coping with a severe event earlier in their lives can lead to better adaptation to a future
event. More prospective studies are needed to test the long-term consequences of reported
posttraumatic psychological growth.
Models of Posttraumatic Psychological Growth. Most theories of development
designate stress as a natural and necessary element of developmental change. Stress
provides opportunity for growth by encouraging, and at times forcing, a re-evaluation of
one’s goals and priorities, strengthening feelings of competence, refining coping skills, and
maximizing social supports. Some would even argue that in order to learn and to experience
meaningful change, we must first fall apart (Flach, 1988).
Like crises, the stress of normative transitions can spur development. Erikson’s
(1963) eight life stages encompass new challenges that enable a person to manage
succeeding stages, provided they are negotiated successfully. According to Erikson,
adequate resolution of a transition creates new coping resources that can help a person
confront subsequent crises. The tension inherent in negotiating transitions may stimulate
changes in cognition and behavior, a review of life goals, and a reassessment of values and
11
beliefs. Likewise, Kegan (1982) describes adult development as evolving as a result of the
tension between societal demands and our mental capacity to meet these demands. This
tension leads to “the evolution of consciousness, the personal unfolding of ways of
organizing experience that are not simply replaced as we grow but subsumed into more
complex systems of mind.”
Given that change is not only unavoidable, but may be essential for optimal
adaptation, it is important for psychologists to understand the mechanisms of change. While
the scope of this project prohibits an exhaustive review, several models seem to capture the
complex and transactional nature of posttraumatic psychological growth.
Like most models of change and growth, transformation coping postulated by
Aldwin (1994) emphasizes the benefits of handling a stressful event. According to the
deviation amplification theory, a system with a feedback loop may function so that small
changes in the system are amplified. As a result, traumatic stress may give rise to a
magnitude of change sufficient to promote transformation.
Holohan, Moos, & Schaefer (1996) consider that for psychology to broaden its
vision to encompass positive, growth-oriented functioning that is more than the simple
absence of disorder, it needs a conceptualization of adaptive processes. They believe that
the research on stress and coping provides such a model. Stress research has evolved from
putting an early emphasis on a person’s deficits and vulnerabilities to placing increasing
emphasis on an individual’s adaptive strengths and capacity for resilience and constructive
action in the face of challenge. They propose a conceptual framework for coping that
emphasizes both enduring, dispositional characteristics of the individual, as well as the more
changeable situational facts that shape coping efforts. The model posits that environmental
and personal system factors shape life crises and their aftermath and influence appraisal and
coping responses, and thereby contribute to the development of positive outcomes or
personal growth (Schaefer & Moos, 1992; 1998). The model includes bi-directional paths,
which highlight the transactional nature of these processes and show that reciprocal
feedback can occur at each stage.
For most people, highly challenging life events are inevitably accompanied by
distressing emotions. In thinking about posttraumatic growth, it is important to consider the
possibility that some degree of continuing distress about a trauma may be needed for
12
posttraumatic psychological growth to be most likely. The experience of growth is not the
same as the absence of personal distress – both growth and psychological distress can
manifest themselves in a variety of ways. The precise relationship between posttraumatic
growth and psychological distress is still a matter of investigation (Tedeschi, Park, &
Calhoun, 1998). There are many possible patterns of relationships between the two general
domains of distress and growth.
Factors Related to Posttraumatic Psychological Growth. In a quest to understand
individuals’ positive adaptation to life crises, researchers have emphasized factors that
enable people to confront stressors and maintain healthy functioning. Based on the
conceptual model described above (Schaefer & Moos, 1992), factors under consideration
fall into the following Panels: (I & II) Environmental and personal system factors shape
(III) life crises and their aftermath, influencing (IV) appraisal and coping responses, and
thereby contribute to (V) the development of positive outcomes or personal growth.
In general, demographic characteristics that are associated with more personal and
social resources, such as being married and better educated, are related to better outcomes.
The impact of age on adaptation depends on the type of crisis and the person’s resources for
coping with it. Aldwin (1994) discusses the importance of considering the impact and
results of trauma as a function of the developmental stage at which the event occurs.
Women scored higher than men on both the Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory and
the Stress-Related Growth Scale (Park et al., 1996; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996), though
studies using these measures have typically assessed growth following a variety of stressful
events. When Wallerstein (1986) studied adults 10 years after their divorce, she discovered
that four times as many women as men reported psychological growth. Continued
examination of growth within the context of specific events may help to clarify these gender
differences.
Although the life crisis literature suggests that personal growth may be more
prevalent than previously thought (Updegraff & Taylor, 2000), it is certainly not so common
as to span individual differences in personality traits. Personality is typically defined as the
intrinsic organization of an individual’s mental world that is stable over time and consistent
over situations (Piedmont, 1998). Since many survivors of adversity do not experience
positive effects from stress, these individuals could well differ from those who do
13
experience personal growth in personality characteristics. Personality, therefore, has great
appeal as a potential predictor of outcomes following trauma.
Some moderate correlations appear between certain personality characteristics and
the tendency to perceive benefits from trauma. In addition to demographic characteristics,
personality factors linked to posttraumatic psychological growth include optimism and hope
(Park et al, 1996; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996; Affleck & Tennen, 1996), and spirituality or
religiousness (Park et al., 1996). Tedeschi and Calhoun (1995) proposed several other
personality factors that they believe might set the stage for personal growth amidst crisis,
including internal locus of control, self-efficacy, hardiness, and a sense of coherence.
One study that used a well-validated measure of the “big five” personality factors
(Costa & McCrae, 1985) found that Neuroticism was negatively correlated to post-traumatic
growth, while Extroversion and Openness were positively correlated (Tedeschi & Calhoun,
1996). These results make intuitive sense. The typical negative self-perception associated
with Neuroticism/negative affect leads to the hypothesis that individuals high on this trait
would be less able to make the positive self-appraisals of personal growth. Those scoring
higher on measures of Extroversion, individuals who are seekers of social contact, might be
especially likely to cite positive consequences of adversity for social relationships.
Individual differences seem to be magnified in times of transition or crisis, as people rely on
those personal characteristics and well-practiced behavioral strategies that have worked in
the past (Tennen & Affleck, 1998).
Though these factors are conceptualized as independent variables in predicting
posttraumatic psychological growth, it is important to remember the transactional nature of
the model, and the possibility of personality change following encounters with adverse life
events. There is strong support for the notion that prospective designs are the only way to
investigate post-traumatic growth adequately; however, because personality traits are
generally considered stable during adulthood, this study makes the assumption that pre-crisis
personality can be inferred from post-crisis assessment.
In addition to individual characteristics, some event-related factors have been linked
to crisis outcomes. As noted above, factors such as the event’s duration, predictability,
suddenness of onset, degree of loss, etc. all influence the individual’s adaptation. In
addition to considering the level of stress involved, certain types of events may differentially
14
predict posttraumatic psychological growth in specific domains. For example, intensely
personal crises, such as a life-threatening accident, might inevitably result in positive
changes in interpersonal relationships, whereas other types of events might result in positive
changes in life philosophy (Schaefer & Moos, 1998).
Appraisal and coping are closely related processes that are linked to adaptation.
Individuals with more personal and social resources are less likely to appraise a life crisis as
a threat and more likely to rely on active coping strategies that are linked to successful
adaptation and posttraumatic psychological growth. Taylor et al. (1984) found that cancer
patients who believed that they or their physician could control their cancer adjusted better
to the illness experience. Armeli et al. (2001) found that posttraumatic psychological
growth was highest for individuals who reported using active coping strategies and who also
reported having adequate support resources. Environmental resources that are linked to
posttraumatic psychological growth include social support, a positive family environment,
community resources, and new life events (Schaefer & Moos, 1998).
In addition to the factors outlined in the model, growth may occur in different time
frames for different domains. For example, a greater appreciation for life may occur
immediately following a natural disaster, while spiritual change may represent a more
gradual process. Longer intervals between a stressful event and the assessment may be
necessary for the occurrence of distinct types of growth. An important topic for future
research is the assessment of growth as it relates to the amount of time that has elapsed since
the occurrence of a traumatic event (Calhoun & Tedeschi, 1998). The determinants
(predictors) of growth might vary as a function of the time frame; for example, event
severity might serve as a significant positive predictor of growth, but only when growth is
assessed years after the trauma (Schaefer & Moos, 1998).
Measurement of Posttraumatic Psychological Growth. Early studies included
varied and study-specific definitions of growth and thriving, or relied on open-ended
interviews that did not provide sound psychometric properties. Recently, two paper-andpencil measures of growth have been developed; the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory
(PTGI: Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) and the Stress-Related Growth Scale (SRGS; Park et al.,
1996). Although these scales are similar, research with the PTGI has supported the
existence of independent thriving domains, whereas early research with the SRGS did not.
15
However, findings from a more recent study (Armeli et al., 2001) suggest that a revised
version of the SRGS may be regarded as a multi-dimensional instrument as well.
An advantage of the PTGI is that it more explicitly assesses behavioral changes in
the domain of “new possibilities.” A drawback of this measure is that all items are worded
in the positive direction. Use of a response scale that restricts responses to only positive
change may result in a loss of information. The revised version of the SRGS addresses this
problem; items were reworded so that participants can report both positive and negative
change (Armeli et al., 2001). However, Park & Blumberg (2002) point out that the concept
of negative growth is contradicted by theoretical definitions of growth. Studies that include
assessment of the negative effects of stressful events in addition to measuring positive
growth may adequately address the problem of response bias.
Though both scales appear to be promising measures of posttraumatic psychological
growth, further research is required to address the dimensionality of thriving as well as the
construct validity of these measures. The dimensionality (structure) of thriving may vary as
a function of stressor, time frame, and person variables (Cohen, Cimbolic, Armeli, &
Hettler, 1998).
Post-Divorce Adjustment and Posttraumatic Psychological Growth
Is posttraumatic psychological growth representative of enhanced functioning, or are
both growth and adjustment related to some underlying adaptive variable? Do variables
implicated by both the adjustment and growth literatures have differential effects?
The relationship between personal growth and adjustment is unclear. Some
researchers have found a significant, positive association between perceived benefits and
adjustment in cancer victims (Taylor et al., 1984) and students experiencing traumatic
events (Wild, 2001) whereas other researchers have not (Park, 1998). These mixed findings
suggest that traditional measures of adjustment may be insensitive to positive change.
Evaluation of the relationships between standardized measures of posttraumatic growth,
well-being, and distress may clarify this issue (Cordova, Cunningham, Carlson, &
Andrykoski, 2001).
It is particularly important to remember that growth and distress are not mutually
exclusive, and that for some persons growth may only be possible if there is sufficient
16
persistence of psychological pain following trauma. Quick and easy resolutions of crises
may produce no growth at all (Flach, 1988).
Though studies examining the multi-dimensionality of growth following stressful
events (Park et al., 1996; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) have considered event characteristics,
few, if any, have applied these measures to specific stressors to examine whether these
dimensions are variable depending on the stressor.
Several factors are implicated in both the posttraumatic psychological growth and the
post-divorce adjustment literatures, though the nature of these relationships may differ. An
examination of these commonalities and differences will help to clarify the relationship
between adjustment to divorce and subsequent psychological growth. Three factors of
specific interest are the level of appraised stress, social support resources, and coping
resources.
Appraised Stress. Post-divorce adjustment has typically been found to be related to
lower levels of appraised stress (Dolan & Hoffman, 1998; Guttmann, 1993). Wang &
Amato (2000) suggest that more important than the actual negative effects associated with
divorce, such as lower income, loss of friends, or moving, are the individual’s perception of
these events as stressful. Issues of controllability, such as who initiated the divorce, have
been found to be associated with divorce adjustment (Wang & Amato, 2000). Another
source of stress is the appraisal of loss. The age of the individual and the length of the
marriage were also associated with higher levels of stress and poorer adjustment, suggesting
that the emotional and tactical investment in marriage is an important factor (Wang &
Amato, 2000). Overall, higher levels of stress following divorce are generally associated
with poorer adjustment outcomes.
In contrast, there is some evidence that increased appraisal of the stressfulness of an
event is related to increased reports of posttraumatic psychological growth (Tedeschi &
Calhoun, 1996; Park et al., 1996; Armeli et al, 2001). Calhoun & Tedeschi (1998) suggest
that a minimum threshold of stress may need to be crossed before events can have sufficient
power to produce the level of subjective disruption necessary for posttraumatic
psychological growth to occur. The positive relationship between event stressfulness and
growth is consistent with the views of Tedeschi and Calhoun (1995), who hypothesized that
growth is, in part, the end product of struggling with a painful stressor.
17
These contrasting findings raise interesting questions about the role of appraised
stress in post-divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth. Examination of
specific stressors, as well as the changes in stress-appraisal over time, may lead to a greater
understanding of both the adjustment and growth processes.
Social Support Resources. Social support is particularly helpful following traumatic
life events, for caring others provide strong, directly experienced support that the world is
benevolent and the survivor is worthy (Janoff-Bulman, 1999).
Research also suggests a role for social resources in predicting growth. Individuals
confronting stressful circumstances may be more likely to experience posttraumatic
psychological growth and thriving if they possess relatively strong social resources. Park et
al. (1996) found that social support, particularly individuals’ satisfaction with their support,
was positively related to reports of stress-related growth.
The links between social resources and growth suggest that social resources may
enable people to interpret the stressful experience in less threatening ways because of the
positive background context. Social support may also provide opportunities for individuals
to discuss and process the event, decreasing its aversiveness and possibly enabling people to
make meaning and identify positive aspects (Janoff-Bulman, 1999).
Although divorce is often followed by a decline in social network size, individuals
who maintain their friendships or who form new social ties show significantly better
adjustment than those who remain socially isolated (Kitson, 1992; Sanson & Farnill, 1997).
However, recent studies have elaborated on the relationship between gender and social
support (Graff, 2001), making this an area of increasing interest.
There are several ways to conceptualize the construct of social support (Holahan,
Moose, & Bonin, 1997). Some researchers have emphasized the structure of an individual’s
social networks. Others have studied the actual provision of supportive behaviors (i.e.,
received social support). Finally, many researchers have measured individuals’ beliefs or
perceptions of the availability of social support (i.e. perceived social support).
For both received support and perceived support, there is some consensus concerning
the various potential functions of social support; (1) emotional support, in which others
communicate to an individual that he or she is cared for in times of stress; (2) social
integration or network support, in which an individual feels part of a group that has common
18
interests and concerns; (3) esteem support, in which others reinforce an individual’s sense of
competence and self-esteem more generally; (4) tangible aid, in which others provide
instrumental assistance, such as money or physical help; and (5) informational support, in
which an individual receives specific suggestions or guidance (Cutrona & Russell, 1990).
Cutrona & Russell (1990) suggest that there is a need for greater specificity in the
assessment of social support components. Their results suggest that the patterns of
correlations between social support components and other variables are not identical and
that one influence on their associations with outcomes is the particular life event in which
they are situated.
Given the consensus that social support satisfaction is a significant predictor of postdivorce adjustment as well as of posttraumatic psychological growth, it is more important
than ever to examine the relationship between gender and social support. One way to more
clearly understand the differences may be to more closely examine the interaction between
gender and specific types of social support.
Of all forms of social support, a new intimate relationship may be the most useful in
facilitating divorce adjustment. Some studies show that psychological well-being and
general adjustment are higher among those who have a new romantic partner (Tschann et al,
1989; Graff, 2001). A new relationship not only provides companionship and a return to
pre-divorce levels of self-esteem, remarriage may also improve a person’s economic
situation and allows one to resume an identity as a married person (Wang & Amato, 2000).
Flach (1988), however, suggests that problems with successful adjustment can occur when,
faced with a stressful life transition, an individual either fails to disrupt (ignores the pain,
masks the pain, pulls together too quickly without adequately making changes) or fails to
reintegrate (putting the pieces together again into a fresh and better whole). Entering into a
new relationship soon after the divorce may ameliorate distressful symptoms related to
loneliness, loss of self-esteem and social status, or financial woes, but may hinder the
process of gaining new insights and making the meaningful changes that constitute growth.
Once again, if the outcome being measured is the absence of psychological
symptoms and a return to pre-divorce levels of functioning, then the presence of a new
romantic relationship may indeed predict post-divorce adjustment while hindering
posttraumatic psychological growth.
19
Clearly, the role of social support variables in protecting and maintaining
psychological health has been well-established across a variety of studies. In addition, the
role of social support in facilitating posttraumatic growth has been documented for a variety
of stressful events. However, the specific psychological and interpersonal processes that
account for the mitigating effects of social support on stressful events remain poorly
understood. One of the reasons for confusion about the mechanisms linking stressors,
sources of support, and outcomes has been a lack of contextual specificity. Another
shortcoming of prior research has been a focus on tests of main or “buffering” effects, rather
than the formulation of specific causal links. The direct or main effects model suggests that
social support exerts beneficial effects on psychological well-being regardless of the
individual’s level of stress. In contrast, the buffer model predicts an interaction between
levels of stress and social support. Individuals reporting high levels of stress who also
perceive satisfactory social relationships will be protected from the negative impact of
stressors on divorce adjustment and posttraumatic growth. In addition to the main effects
and buffer models described above, a third possibility exists, that of an indirect effect or
mediator model. Studies that test alternatives to main and buffering effects may increase
understanding of how and under what conditions social support is effective. Therefore, one
purpose of this study was to compare a mediating model of social support with the widely
cited buffer model, within the context of divorce. The development and evaluation of
mediational models may increase understanding of how these variables exert their influence.
Coping Resources. Successful coping—meeting life’s challenges, overcoming
adversities, and moving from one phase in the natural life cycle to the next—involves our
ability to sustain our psychological coherence in the face of stress, or if we have lost such
coherence, to regain it afterward, although usually in a somewhat altered form (Flach, 1988).
For individuals who have experienced a traumatic life event, coping involves the rebuilding
of their inner world and the creation of a set of assumptions that can account for the
traumatic experience, yet provide some modicum of personal solace and the development of
a new worldview (Janoff-Bulman, 1999). Survivors are aided by both automatic
psychological processes that help them get through each day, as well as by a number of
motivated cognitive strategies that continue after the automatic processes cease to be
needed.
20
The conceptualization of coping processes is a central aspect of understanding
theories of adjustment and growth. Coping is a stabilizing factor that can help individuals
maintain psychosocial adaptation during stressful periods; it encompasses both cognitive
and behavioral efforts to reduce or eliminate stressful conditions and the associated
emotional distress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Coping activities include problem-focused
coping strategies that involve active efforts to change the problematic circumstances,
emotion-focused strategies that enable individuals to manage their distress and focus on
more productive coping, and meaning making or cognitive coping that enables a person to
change the meaning of unalterable stressors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Park & Folkman,
1997). Although coping responses may be classified in many ways, most approaches also
distinguish between strategies oriented toward approaching and confronting the problem,
and strategies oriented toward reducing tension by avoiding dealing directly with the
problem (Schaefer & Moos, 1992).
Not all coping strategies are efficacious. Approach coping strategies, such as
problem solving and seeking information, can modify the potential adverse influence of
negative life changes on psychological functioning (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Hansell,
1988). In contrast, avoidance coping strategies, such as denial and withdrawal, generally are
associated with psychological distress and maladaptive outcomes (Hansell, 1988).
A number of stress and coping researchers have proposed models to explain the
process by which posttraumatic psychological growth may occur. These theories generally
propose that people’s initial responses to highly stressful situations are fraught with anxiety,
distress, and confusion. According to most proposed models, more stressful experiences
provide more opportunities to experience growth because of their greater impact in
disrupting a person’s global meaning system (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995). Meaning making
or cognitive coping is generally believed to be a critical aspect of recovery and growth
following stressful events or experiences; this type of coping involves individuals’ attempts
to assimilate or make congruent the occurrence of the stressful experience with their precrisis beliefs (Park & Folkman, 1997).
Despite these theoretical models, empirical research on coping and posttraumatic
psychological growth is sparse. Studies that have evaluated the determinants of
posttraumatic psychological growth, specifically the relationships between appraisals,
21
coping strategies, and reports of growth have focused on only a few appraisal dimensions
and coping strategies and have failed to examine the interactive nature of these variables
(Aldwin, Sutton, & Lachman, 1996).
Only a few studies have identified specific coping strategies that lead to
posttraumatic psychological growth. Park et al (1996) found that positive reinterpretation
coping, as well as acceptance coping and emotional social support coping were positively
related to higher reports of stress-related growth. Aldwin et al. (1996) found problemfocused coping was positively related to experiencing positive outcomes, whereas escapism
was negatively related to experiencing positive outcomes.
Likewise, only a few studies (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980; Hansell, 1988) have
examined the relationship between specific coping strategies and post-divorce adjustment.
As with the construct of social support, examination of specific coping strategies may help
to delineate gender differences in coping, as well as to assess whether coping strategies
differentially predict post-divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth.
While the literature has primarily studied direct relations between coping and
psychological adjustment, there are theoretical reasons to expect more complicated models
whereby coping modifies the effect of stress on psychological adjustment. Coping is usually
defined as “cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal
demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person” (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). Therefore, effective coping strategies might be expected to either moderate
or mediate the effects of stress on post-divorce adjustment and growth.
Summary
The objective of this study was to examine the role of posttraumatic psychological
growth within the context of the divorce process for parents and to develop a theoretical
model of post-divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth. Though
divorced parents represent only a portion of all divorced individuals, in most cases divorced
parents tend to have been married longer and face a more complex set of problems and
issues than individuals without children (Ahrons & Rodgers, 1987). Also, since many
counties and states now require divorcing parents to attend education programs, these
programs provide a useful point of contact. Therefore, this study examined the adjustment
and posttraumatic psychological growth of divorced parents.
22
A major purpose of this study was to clarify the relationship between adjustment to
divorce and subsequent psychological growth. In particular, this study examined the
question of whether adjustment and psychological growth represent two separate outcomes,
or whether adjustment precedes psychological growth in the post-divorce process.
Several pre-divorce demographic and individual factors have been identified in the
literature as predicting the outcomes of post-divorce adjustment and psychological growth.
They are: sex of participant, socio-economic status, previous psychological problems, and
personality characteristics such as extroversion and emotional stability. Several additional
factors related to the divorce have also been identified for their predictive utility. These
event characteristics include who decided to divorce, child-custody status, and agreement
with the custody decision.
Taken as a whole, the above individual and event characteristics may influence an
individual’s perception of how stressful his or her divorce may be. This appraisal of stress
in turn has been shown to predict both post-divorce adjustment and posttraumatic
psychological growth. This line of influence describes mediation, in which a variable that
represents a response to other variables may be considered the mechanism through which
the independent variables influence the dependent variables (Holmbeck, 1997). This is
consistent with the notion that an individual’s appraisal of the stressfulness of an event
precedes adjustment and growth. Therefore, the appraised stressfulness of the divorce was
examined for its ability to mediate the effect of individual and event characteristics on the
dependent variables.
Variables that are not necessarily caused by the independent variables, but are
nevertheless hypothesized to affect the relationship between two variables, can be
considered moderator variables. A moderator variable specifies the conditions under which
an independent variable exerts its effects. In other words, a moderator variable specifies
“when,” or under what conditions a relationship exists between independent and dependent
variables. In this study, special attention was focused on the moderating effects of postdivorce factors on the relationship between appraised stress and the dependent variables.
These factors are: the number of years since the divorce, whether the participant received
counseling related to the divorce, and the presence of a new romantic relationship.
23
Additional intervening factors, such as the perception of social support received and
coping strategies used following the divorce, were also be examined for their predictive
value. Another purpose of the current study was to test the two mechanisms by which social
support and coping style might modify adjustment and growth outcomes: moderating versus
mediating effects. The emphasis on moderating and mediating variables carries the added
advantage that such variables are often themselves more modifiable than dispositional traits.
As a result, these moderating and mediating factors in the face of high stress can be useful
points of intervention. Figure 1 depicts the relationships included in a hypothesized model
of post-divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth.
The two predicted outcomes of the model were post-divorce adjustment and
posttraumatic psychological growth. This study hypothesized that, though they are
generally associated with common factors, specific demographic, individual, and event
characteristics would differentially predict adjustment and growth.
Hypotheses
The major goals of this study were to: (a) compare single and multi-factor models of
the posttraumatic psychological growth construct using the Post-Traumatic Growth
Inventory (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996) and a short-form of the Stress-Related Growth Scale
(Park et al., 1996), (b) validate the Divorce-Stress-Adjustment perspective of divorce
adjustment and establish the role of posttraumatic psychological growth within the model,
and (c) examine the effects of specific types of coping resources and types of social support
resources on post-divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth, with special
attention to gender differences in the accessibility of both coping and social support
resources.
Various factors were evaluated for their predictive utility as well as for possible
moderating or mediating effects. Though this study was largely exploratory, a number of
specific hypotheses were ventured based on existing evidence and theory.
Hypothesis I: Relationship between stressfulness of divorce and adjustment and
posttraumatic psychological growth. It was hypothesized that the appraised stressfulness
of the divorce would mediate the relationship between individual and divorce characteristics
and adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth, with greater stressfulness
24
associated with poorer adjustment, and greater stressfulness associated with increased
posttraumatic psychological growth.
Hypothesis II: Relationship between length of time since divorce and adjustment
and posttraumatic psychological growth. “Time since divorce” specifically has been linked
to psychological well-being (Booth & Amato, 1991) with the passage of time being
associated with increased post-divorce adjustment. The role of “time since the divorce” in
moderating the effects of stress on adjustment and growth was examined in this study. It
was hypothesized that post-divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth
would both differ between groups of individuals at various points of time since divorce.
In addition, it was hypothesized that the greatest differences in adjustment would be
seen between individuals in the first three years following divorce, with adjustment levels
greater as years since divorce increases. Posttraumatic psychological growth would also be
greater in individuals who have been divorced longer, but no specific predictions were made
as to the pattern of growth.
Hypothesis III: Relationship between new relationship status and adjustment and
posttraumatic psychological growth. It was hypothesized that divorced individuals who
have remarried or are in a committed relationship would show increased adjustment
compared with individuals who have not entered a new relationship. New relationship was
also examined for its effect on posttraumatic psychological growth, though it was predicted
that individuals who have entered into a new relationship would show lower levels of
posttraumatic psychological growth when compared with individuals who have not entered a
new relationship.
Hypothesis IV: Relationship of social support and coping style to adjustment and
posttraumatic psychological growth. It was hypothesized that the perception of social
support received and the coping styles used following divorce would mediate the effects of
stressors on adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth.
Hypothesis V: Relationship between gender, social support, coping, and
adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth. This study examined gender
differences with respect to various types of social support received, as well as to types of
coping used. In general, both social support and problem-focused coping are typically
associated with greater adjustment; however, it is important to gain a better understanding of
25
the specific types of both social support and coping that are most useful for men and women.
It was therefore predicted that men and women would report differences in the types of
social support they access, as well as differences in the types of coping strategies used,
though no specific predictions were made regarding the pattern of differences.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 140 adults (46 male, 94 female) who were divorced or had filed for
divorce between January 1999 and April 2003 and were parents of at least one child under
the age of 18. The mean age of participants was 40.2 years (males-42.1 years, females-39.2
years). Race of participants was Caucasian (95%), African-American (2.1%), Hispanic
(0.7%), Asian (0.7%), and Other (1.4%).
The current household income of participants was as follows: 16.4% reported
household incomes of less than $20,000 (6 male, 17 female), 31.4% reported $20,00140,000 (10 male, 34 female), 25% reported $40,001 to 60,000 (14 male, 21 female), 19.3%
reported $60,001 to 100,000 (10 male, 17 female), and 7.1% reported household incomes
greater than $100,000 (6 male, 4 female). Regarding level of education, 0.7% participants
reported attending some high school (1 female), 20% had a high school degree (13 male, 15
female), 31.4% attended vocational school (12 male, 32 female), 33.6% had a college degree
(15 male, 32 female), and 14.3% had a graduate or professional degree (6 male, 14 female).
There were no significant differences between men and women on age, race, income, or
level of education.
Participants were married an average of 12.7 years. The mean number of years since
divorce was 3.4. Seventy-one participants reported that they had decided to end the
marriage (9 male, 62 female), 47 reported that their ex-spouse had decided to end the
marriage (28 male, 19 female), and 22 reported that the decision to divorce was mutual (9
male, 13 female).
The present relationship status of participants was as follows: 19 were remarried (9
male, 10 female), 17 were living with someone in a love-relationship (2 male, 15 female), 28
were in an important relationship but not living together (9 male, 19 female), 22 were dating
26
but not in an important love-relationship (10 male, 12 female), and 54 were not actively
dating (16 male, 38 female).
The legal custody status of the participants was as follows: 70 had primary custody
(7 male, 63 female), 19 were non-custodial parents (15 male, 4 female), and 51 shared joint
custody,” (24 male, 27 female). One-hundred twenty-two participants agreed with the
custody decision (33 male, 89 female), and 18 did not agree with the custody decision (13
male, 5 female).
Procedure
Participants were recruited using a mailed survey. A mailing list was generated by
randomly selecting names from both a list of individuals identified through records of a
divorce education program for divorcing parents in Warren County, Ohio, as well as through
public records in Montgomery County, Ohio.
Warren County is located in rural southwestern Ohio. The population at the time of
the 2000 census (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000) was 158,383 (50.6% male,
49.4% female). The racial profile of Warren County is as follows: Caucasian (95%),
African-American (3%), Asian (1.3%), and other (0.7%). Montgomery County is also
located in southwestern Ohio, with both rural and urban areas. The population at the time of
the 2000 census was 559,062 (48% male, 52% female). The racial profile of Montgomery
County is as follows: Caucasian (76.6%), African-American (19.9%), Hispanic (1.3%),
Asian (1.3%), and other (0.9%).
In Warren County, the divorce education program is a mandatory workshop for
divorcing parents. The program focuses on teaching parents effective co-parenting
following divorce. Only those seminar participants were included who had filed for divorce
within the past five years and had signed a release form consenting to follow-up research
efforts. Additional names were obtained via a search of the Montgomery County Public
Records for divorce cases filed between January 1999 and April 2003.
Survey packets included a cover letter describing the purpose of the study and the
requirements for participation (see Appendix A), a letter of support from the divorce
education program director (see Appendix B), instructions (see Appendix C), and an 8 page
paper-and-pencil survey booklet containing demographic questions and study measures (see
Appendix D). Estimated time for completion of the survey packet was less than one hour.
27
A stamped, addressed return envelope was provided for participants to return the
completed survey. Participants who returned surveys were entered into a lottery for a $200
gift of their choice. Participants also were given the option of returning surveys
anonymously, without entry into the lottery.
A total of 1,981 surveys were mailed, with an estimated 400 surveys (approximately
20%) returned as undelivered, most due to no available forwarding address. Of the
remaining surveys, 143 were returned (9%). Three surveys were incomplete and were not
included in the data analyses.
Measures
The measures used in this research were presented in a survey booklet that included
demographic and divorce characteristic questions (e.g., gender, income, race, age, education
level, custody arrangement, marital/relationship status, marital duration, time since divorce,
and number of children), as well as several additional instruments.
Independent Variables.
Gender, race, and who initiated the divorce were assessed by participants’
responses to forced-choice items on the demographic questionnaire.
Personality factors – extroversion and neuroticism. The Big Five Inventory (John,
Donahue, & Kentle, 1991) was designed as a quick assessment of the Big Five Personality
Dimensions of extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability
(neuroticism), and openness. The measure is composed of 54 items (9 for each trait) scored
along a 5-point scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” with half the
items reverse scored. For this study, only 18 items measuring emotional stability and
extroversion were used. The emotional stability and extroversion subscales demonstrated
adequate internal consistency, with reliability of .77 and .85 respectively.
Psychological Problems were determined by participants’ responses to two
questions: “Have you ever received counseling for a psychological problem?” and “Have
you ever had problems with drugs or alcohol?” The results were combined to form a single
variable.
Socioeconomic status was assessed through the use of two measures—years of
education and income. Education was measured by asking respondents how many years of
education they have completed. This item had seven response categories ranging from (1)
28
some high school to (7) a professional degree. Income was measured by asking respondents
to indicate their household’s total gross income. This item had five response categories
ranging from (1) less than $20,000 to (5) over $100,000.
Legal custody status was determined by asking participants to identify the custody
relationship they have with their children. This item had three response categories: (1)
primary custodial parent, (2) non-custodial parent, and (3) joint or shared-custodial parent.
In addition, participants were asked to describe the physical custody status by designating
one of four response categories: The child/children are in my care (1) more than 2/3 of the
time, (2) less than 2/3 of the time, (3) approximately half the time, and (4) other (e.g., split
custody of multiple children, alternating years). Agreement with custody status was
assessed by participants’ responses to this forced-choice item.
Moderating Variables.
Time since divorce was determined by participants’ response to the question, “How
long has it been since your divorce?” This measure was calculated in years.
New relationship status was determined by participants’ reported current
relationship status. This item had five response categories ranging from (1) not involved in
an intimate relationship to (5) remarried.
Counseling received was assessed by participants’ responses to the question, “Did
you receive counseling related to your divorce?”
Mediating Variables.
The level of stress associated with divorce was measured by the Appraised
Stressfulness Questionnaire (Armeli et al., 2001), a 20-item measure designed to assess
participants’ appraisals of stress at the time of their divorce on the dimensions of (a) loss, (b)
threat, (c) challenge, (d) centrality, (e) severity, (f) previous experience, (g) predictability,
(h) controllability, (i) coping ability, and (j) support resources. These items were adapted
from a measure used by Armeli et al (2001), in which items were confirmed by factor
analysis using both adult and student samples experiencing a variety of stressful events.
Items were tailored to reflect the particular experience of divorce, and wording was changed
so that the same response scale was used for all items. Participants rated their agreement
with each item on a 5-point scale: all items had the response choices of A (strongly disagree)
29
to E (strongly agree). The scale demonstrated adequate internal consistency, with reliability
of .84 for this study.
Participants’ coping styles were assessed using a short form of the Ways of Coping
Inventory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This checklist contains a variety of cognitive and
behavioral strategies individuals may use in coping with a stressful event. The revised
checklist was developed by taking the three top loading items from each of eight coping
factors derived from a factor analysis of the original version of the questionnaire (Folkman,
Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, Delongis, & Gruen, 1986). The short form of the Ways of
Coping Inventory yields the same eight coping scales as the original version: (1)
Confrontive coping, (2) Distancing, (3) Self-controlling, (4) Seeking social support, (5)
Accepting responsibility, (6) Escape-avoidance, (7) Planful problem solving, and (8)
Positive Reappraisal. The eight coping scales of the Ways of Coping Inventory are evenly
divided between the two general forms of coping, problem-focused coping and emotionfocused coping. Folkman et al. (1986) report that both general forms of coping are typically
used during stressful events.
Participants indicated the extent to which they used each of the coping strategies on a
4-point Likert scale ranging from (0) does not apply to (3) a lot. Coping scale scores were
computed by taking the total of the scores on the items comprising each scale.
Perceived social support was assessed using the Social Provisions Scale (Cutrona &
Russell, 1987), which is a general measure of perceived social support designed to tap six
provisions of social relationships. The six provisions assessed are guidance (advice,
information), reliable alliance (tangible assistance), attachment (caring), social integration
(belonging to a group of similar others), reassurance of worth (positive evaluation), and
opportunity to provide nurturance (providing support to others). Each provision is assessed
by 4 items, two that describe the presence and two that describe the absence of the
provision, for a total of 24 items. Participants rated their agreement with each item on a 5point scale: all items had the response choices of A (strongly disagree) to E (strongly agree).
Reliability for the scale ranges from .87 to .91 across a range of samples (Cutrona &
Russell, 1987), and was .94 for this study sample. Alpha coefficients for the individual
subscales have ranged from .64 to .76, and factor analysis has confirmed a six-factor
structure corresponding to the six provision scales (Cutrona & Russell, 1987).
30
Outcome Variables
A subjective measure of divorce recovery was measured by participants’ responses
to the question, “have you adjusted well to your divorce?”
Post-divorce adjustment was measured by a revised version of the Fisher Divorce
Adjustment Scale (Fisher, 1978). The FDAS is a criterion measure of post-divorce
adjustment. The scale is a self-report rating instrument that assesses a divorced person’s
level of acceptance of the divorce and his or her feelings and attitudes about the divorce as
well as feelings of self-worth, emotional disentanglement, anger, grief work completed, and
social trust. Participants rated their agreement with each item on a 5-point scale: all items
had the response choices of A (strongly disagree) to E (strongly agree).
The Kuder-Richardson Internal Reliability for the original 100-item scale is .92
(Fisher, 1978). A study by Graff (2001) found that scores on the subscales of the FDAS are
significantly related to those of other commonly used measures of divorce adjustment such
as the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979), the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised
(Derogatis, 1994) and the Quality of Life Inventory (Frisch, 1994), such that use of the
FDAS as an overall measure of adjustment is warranted.
A short-form of the scale was devised in the following manner. Based on a sample
of 81 participants from a previous study (Graff, 2001), principal components factor analysis
confirmed the six subscales proposed by Fisher (1978). For each subscale, exactly half the
items with the highest factor loadings were selected. A small number of substitutions were
made where equivalent factor loadings identified redundant or similarly worded items. The
correlation between the new 50-item short form and the original 100-item scale was r=.98.
In addition, correlations between subscales of the short form and other measures of divorce
adjustment were significant and similar to those found with the original 100-item measure
(ranging from .67 to .73). Reliability for the short-form of the DAS was .96 for this study
sample. Alpha coefficients for the subscales ranged from .81 to .95.
Posttraumatic growth was measured by both the Stress-Related Growth Scale
(SRGS: Park et al., 1996) and the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI; Tedeschi &
Calhoun, 1996). It has been suggested that the factor structure of growth scales might vary
as a function of characteristics of the respondent population, the types of crises experienced,
and the time frame for growth assessment (Schaefer & Moos, 1998). In order to determine
31
which scale most accurately assesses psychological growth following divorce, both scales
were initially used as outcome measures.
The PTGI has 21 items, all positively worded, such as “As a result of my divorce, I
have a greater feeling of self-reliance”. Participants rated their agreement with each item on
a 5-point scale: all items had the response choices of A (strongly disagree) to E (strongly
agree). Principal component analysis with orthogonal rotation revealed five factors
(subscales) that accounted for about 60% of the variance: (a) relating to others, (b) new
possibilities, (c) personal strength, (d) spiritual change, and (e) appreciation of live. Both
the full scale (.90) and the separate subscales (.67 - .85) of the PTGI have been reported to
have good internal reliability (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). The alpha coefficient for the full
scale was .94 for this study sample.
The original SRGS contains 50 items, all positively worded, with a 0-2 response
choice (0=”not at all”; 2= “a great deal”). Items were completed as they pertain to
participants’ most negative event for some specific time frame. A series of factor analyses
were conducted on the 50 SRGS items; overall, most items loaded the highest on one
general factor. Park & Blumberg (2002) used a short form of the SRGS consisting of 15
items, with internal reliability of .88. The short form was used in this study, with an internal
reliability of .93.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics were analyzed for variables initially examined as independent
(individual and divorce characteristics), moderating, mediating, and dependent variables.
Table 1 lists the range, mean, and standard deviation for each quantitative measure. The
distributions of all measures were approximately normal.
Statistical Analyses
Dimensions of Posttraumatic Psychological Growth Measures. The dimensionality
of each posttraumatic psychological growth measure was evaluated using principal
components factor analyses. Factor analysis was performed on the 21 items of the PTGI. A
principal components analysis was performed on these items followed by a varimax rotation.
A five-factor solution was produced after 9 iterations, resulting in eigenvalues greater than
.96. The rotated solution, as shown in Table 2, accounted for 71% of the common variance.
Fifteen of the 21 items loaded greater than .55 on one of the five factors without loading
32
greater than .4 on any other factor, and examination of the rotated component matrix shows
that 19 of 21 factor loadings are consistent with those reported in the previous literature
(Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). The five-factor model fit the data, Χ2(115) = 182.7, p=.000,
confirming the multi-dimensionality of the PTGI.
The average response on each PTGI factor was greater (3.74) than the mid-point
response (see Table 17). The average response was greatest for the domain “Personal
Strength” (4.02), followed by “Appreciation for Life” (3.84), “New Possibilities” (3.79),
“Spiritual Growth” (3.59), and “Relating to Others” (3.53).
A series of factor analyses were also performed on the 15 items of the SRGS. These
analyses were conducted with no limitation on number of factors, and also when one, two,
and three factors were forced using a maximum likelihood extraction method. In all of these
analyses, most items loaded the highest on one general factor with an eigenvalue of 7.54.
Correlations ranged from .50 to .78. This factor accounted for more than 50% of the
common variance, which is consistent with the previous literature (Park et al., 1996). The
one-factor model fit the data, X2(90) = 219.8, p=.000, confirming the uni-dimensionality of
the SRGS.
The question of whether the PTGI and the SRGS measure similar constructs was
addressed next. An additional factor analysis was performed on all 36 items of both
measures. A maximum likelihood extraction method was used to examine the fit of a fivefactor model. In this analysis, 14 of the 15 SRGS items loaded onto a single factor that was
unique from all of the 21 PTGI items, while the 21 items of the PTGI loaded on the
remaining four factors in a pattern consistent with the analysis on PTGI items alone,
suggesting that the SRGS measures a factor unique from the factors measured by the PTGI.
However, correlation coefficients between the SRGS and the five PTGI factors were
statistically significant (r=.67, p=.000), suggesting that the SRGS and the PTGI measure a
single general construct.
Initial analyses indicated that while the patterns of relationships were similar
between independent variables and both the PTGI and SRGS, in most cases, the use of the
SRGS did not produce statistically significant results. Moreover, the items on the PTGI and
SRGS are very similar; both scales have items that tap changes in social relationships,
personal resources, and coping skills. Because one purpose of this study was to compare
33
psychological growth to a multi-dimensional model of post-divorce adjustment, only the
PTGI was included as a dependent variable in subsequent analyses.
Correlations. As an initial step to examine the relationships between posttraumatic
psychological growth measures, adjustment measures, and factors found to predict both in
previous studies, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between selected
demographic and divorce variables, mediating variables, and participants’ totals on all
dependent variables (see Table 3).
In order to reduce redundancy in the number of dependent variables, correlation
coefficients were examined between the Divorce Adjustment Scale and the variable
measuring Subjective Adjustment (see Table 4). The associations were statistically
significant for all dimensions of the DAS and Subjective Adjustment, suggesting that they
measure the same underlying construct. As a result, only the DAS was used as a dependent
variable in subsequent analyses.
Regression Analyses. Based on an examination of the correlation matrices, six
variables measuring demographic or divorce characteristics were each found to have a
statistically significant association with at least one dependent variable, and were therefore
entered into regression analyses to test their ability to predict the dependent variables. The
variables entered were as follows: sex of participant, who decided to divorce, legal custody
status, agreement with custody status, education level, extroversion, and emotional stability.
Four of these variables (sex, education, emotional stability, and agreement) significantly
predicted scores on at least one of the two dependent variables, and were therefore included
in subsequent regression analyses as control variables.
Several additional variables were hypothesized to moderate or mediate the
relationship between the control variables and the dependent variables. These were first
added to a step-wise regression analyses in order to evaluate their ability to predict divorce
adjustment and post-traumatic growth over and above the control variables. These variables
were as follows: the appraised stressfulness of the divorce, receiving counseling related to
the divorce, the number of years since the divorce, new relationship status, perceived social
support, and coping style used. Table 5 displays for each dependent variable the regression
correlations (R) and the significance level (p) for each control variable, the R square change
and the significance level (p) for each added variable, along with the unstandardized
34
regression coefficients (B), the standard error of the coefficient (se), and the standardized
regression coefficients (β) for all independent variables. The control variables significantly
predicted higher scores on the measure of divorce adjustment and on the measure of
posttraumatic psychological growth. However, the ability of the selected additional
variables to significantly predict higher scores over and above the control variables differed
for each dependent variable. These differences are addressed individually in the following
sections.
Examination of collinearity statistics indicated no significant problem with
multicollinearity among these variables. With the use of a p<.001 criterion for Mahalanobis
distances, no significant outliers were identified among the cases.
Hypothesis I: Relationship between stressfulness of divorce and adjustment and
posttraumatic psychological growth. Hierarchical regression analyses were carried out to
examine the effect of the appraised stressfulness of the divorce over and above control
variables on the scores of adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth measures. As
hypothesized, participants’ appraisal of the stressfulness of the divorce significantly
predicted scores on the Divorce Adjustment Scale (R2 change = .10, p = .000), with greater
stressfulness associated with lower adjustment.
Conversely, it was hypothesized that greater stressfulness would be associated with
higher scores on measures of posttraumatic psychological growth. However, the appraised
stressfulness of the divorce did not significantly predict posttraumatic psychological growth
on the PTGI.
Additional multiple regression analyses were used to test the mediating effect of
appraised stress as the mechanism through which the independent variables influence
adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth. In addition to theoretical plausibility,
several statistical criteria are required to test the hypotheses that appraised stress mediates
the relationship between individual and event characteristics and dependent variables (Baron
& Kenny, 1986; Holmbeck, 1997). First, a relationship between the predictors and the
outcome variables needs to be established. Second, a relationship between the mediator
(appraised stress) and the outcome variables needs to be established. Third, a relationship
between the predictors and the mediator needs to be established. Fourth, after controlling
for the effects of the mediator on the outcome, the relationship between the predictors and
35
the outcome should be significantly reduced (Baron & Kenny, 1986). In other words, a
mediating effect is indicated when the regression coefficients of the independent variables
are reduced when the proposed mediating variable is entered into the regression equation.
For this study, regression coefficients and standard errors of the coefficients were
entered into a formula for testing the significance of the reduction. Calculations were
performed via a website calculation tool (Preacher & Leonardelli, 2004) using the Goodman
version of the Sobel test (Baron & Kenney, 1986). The resulting z-scores and p values can
be seen in Table 6. The reduction in the regression coefficients of the independent variables
when appraised stress was controlled was significant for the DAS, but was not significant
for the PTGI. These results suggest that while the appraised stressfulness of divorce
mediates the effect of the independent variables on divorce adjustment, it neither predicts
nor mediates posttraumatic psychological growth.
Hypothesis II: Relationship between length of time since divorce and adjustment
and posttraumatic psychological growth. The results of the hierarchical regression showed
that the number of years since the divorce significantly predicted higher scores over and
above control variables for the Divorce Adjustment Scale (R2 change = .03, p = .00), but not
for the Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory (R2 change = .00, p = .67).
To further examine the effect of time on divorce adjustment, the mean scores on the
Divorce Adjustment Scale were examined for participants at each year following divorce,
and the difference between scores at each interval was calculated (see Table 7). The average
difference score between years 1 and 2 and years 2 and 3 was an increase of 14.44. The
average difference score between years 3 and 4, 4 and 5, and 5 and 6 was a decrease of 1.9.
To examine whether “time since the divorce” influences the effect of appraised
stressfulness on divorce adjustment and psychological growth, several statistical analyses
were conducted. First, a one-way anova examining the mean differences of appraised stress
over time was conducted. The result of this anova indicated no significant differences in
appraised stress across the number of years since divorce (F(5,134)=.44, p=.82).
A set of multiple regression equations was generated to test the moderating effect of
time since divorce on appraised stressfulness, using the procedure suggested by Baron &
Kenny (1986). First, the appraised stress and time since divorce variables were entered in a
block. The interaction term was entered on the second step. As shown in Table 8, a
36
significant direct effect was found for “years since divorce,” accounting for a significant
proportion of the variance in divorce adjustment. The interaction term also contributed
significantly to the prediction of divorce adjustment, supporting a moderating model. In
contrast, the interaction term for appraised stress x years since divorce was not significant
for posttraumatic growth.
To further illustrate this relationship, a series of 2 x 2 analyses of variance were
conducted to evaluate the interactions. The total appraised stress scores were dichotomized
based on the mean and median, with scores at or below 64 representing low appraised stress,
and scores above 65 representing high appraised stress. The mean and standard deviation
for each dependent variable as a function of the appraised stress and time since divorce are
presented in Table 9. The results of these ANOVA also indicated a significant interaction
between stressfulness and “time since the divorce” on divorce adjustment, both when
examining the first six years following the divorce (f(5,139) = 2.2, p = .05), and the first three
years following the divorce (f(2,70) = 3.4, p = .04). Examination of the means indicated that
participants who reported higher levels of appraised stress reported greater increases in postdivorce adjustment over successive years, whereas those who reported lower levels of stress
reported similar levels of adjustment regardless of the amount of time elapsed since the
divorce. Figure 2 illustrates this interaction.
As with the regression method, there was no significant main effect or interaction of
“time since the divorce” on posttraumatic psychological growth.
Hypothesis III: Relationship between new relationship status and adjustment and
posttraumatic psychological growth. It was hypothesized that divorced individuals who
have remarried or are in a committed relationship would show increased adjustment and
decreased posttraumatic psychological growth compared to individuals who have not
entered a new relationship. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that new relationship
status significantly predicted higher scores over and above control variables for the Divorce
Adjustment Scale (R2 change = .07, p = .000), and also for the Post-Traumatic Growth
Inventory (R2 change = .06, p = .000).
A set of multiple regression equations was generated to test the moderating effect of
new relationship status on appraised stressfulness. As shown in Table 8, a significant direct
effect was found for relationship status, accounting for a significant proportion of the
37
variance in divorce adjustment. The interaction term was not significant for the DAS. In
contrast, both the direct effect and the interaction for appraised stress x relationship status
were significant for the PTGI, supporting a moderating model.
To further illustrate the relationship between appraised stress and new romantic
relationship status, a 2 x 2 analysis of variance was conducted to evaluate the interaction.
The relationship categories were merged into two category levels: “in a meaningful
relationship” and “not in a meaningful relationship.” The mean and standard deviation for
each dependent variable as a function of appraised stress and relationship status are
presented in Table 9. As with the regression method, the results of these ANOVA indicated
a significant interaction between stressfulness and new relationship status on the PTGI
(f(1,138) = 6.8, p = .01), but not on the DAS. Examination of the means indicated that
participants who reported lower levels of stress reported greater levels of psychological
growth when in a new relationship compared to participants who are not in a new
relationship, whereas those who reported higher levels of stress reported similar levels of
psychological growth regardless of relationship status. Figure 3 illustrates this interaction.
Additional Analyses: Relationship between counseling and adjustment and
posttraumatic psychological growth. While no specific hypothesis was ventured regarding
the relationship between receiving counseling related to the divorce and dependent
variables, this relationship was examined nevertheless. Hierarchical regression analyses
showed that receiving counseling significantly predicted higher scores over and above
control variables for the Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory (R2 change = .04, p = .01), but
not for the Divorce Adjustment Scale (R2 change = .00, p = .93).
A set of multiple regression equations was generated to test the moderating effect of
counseling on appraised stressfulness. As shown in Table 8, significant direct effects were
found for counseling, accounting for a significant proportion of the variance in both divorce
adjustment and posttraumatic growth. The interaction term for appraised stress x counseling
was also significant for the DAS, supporting a moderating model. The interaction term was
not significant for the PTGI.
To further illustrate the interaction between appraised stress and counseling, a 2 x 2
analysis of variance was conducted to evaluate the interaction. The mean and standard
deviation for each dependent variable as a function of the two factors are presented in Table
38
9. As with the regression method, the results of these ANOVA indicated a significant
interaction between stressfulness and counseling on the DAS (f(1,139) = 3.8, p = .05), but not
on the PTGI. Examination of the means indicated that participants who reported higher
levels of stress reported greater levels of adjustment when they received divorce counseling
compared to participants who did not receive counseling, whereas those who reported lower
levels of stress reported similar levels of adjustment regardless of whether or not they
received counseling. Figure 4 illustrates this interaction.
Hypothesis IV: Relationship of social support and coping style to adjustment and
posttraumatic psychological growth. This study examined the roles of the perception of
social support received and the coping styles used following divorce in mediating the effects
of stressors on adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth.
Social Support. As a first step in examining the role of social support in post-divorce
processes, hierarchical regression analyses were carried out to examine the effect of
perceived social support over and above control variables on the scores of adjustment and
posttraumatic psychological growth measures. As hypothesized, participants’ perceptions of
social support following divorce significantly predicted scores on the Divorce Adjustment
Scale (R2 change=.14, p=.000), and the Post-Traumatic Growth Scale (R2 change=.11,
p=.000). On all measures, higher total scores on perceived social support were associated
with greater adjustment and growth.
Additional multiple regression analyses were used to test the mediating effect of
perceived social support as the mechanism through which the independent variables
influence adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth (Baron & Kenny, 1986;
Holmbeck, 1997). A mediating effect is indicated when the regression coefficients of the
independent variables are reduced when the proposed mediating variable is entered into the
regression equation. For this study, regression coefficients and standard errors of the
coefficients were entered into a formula for testing the significance of the reduction.
Calculations were performed via a website calculation tool (Preacher & Leonardelli, 2004)
using the Goodman version of the Sobel test (Baron & Kenney, 1986). The resulting zscores and p values can be seen in Table 6. The reduction in the regression coefficients of
the independent variables when social support was controlled was significant for all
variables except sex on both the DAS and the PTGI. These results suggest that perceived
39
social support does mediate the effects of the remaining independent variables on divorce
adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth.
Further analyses were conducted to examine the effects of more specific social
support factors. According to the mediational model, the stress of divorce leads to increases
in one or more social support strategies. Depending upon the nature of the social support,
these increased perceptions of social support, in turn, lead to increased adjustment and
posttraumatic psychological growth. In this case, the interest was in the independent
contribution of each social support factor to the prediction of adjustment and growth over
and above the other social support factors. Therefore, all the social support and dependent
variables were included in the mediational model simultaneously.
Figure 5 depicts the results of a mediational analysis following the general guidelines
for effect decomposition provided by Baron & Kenny (1986). To simplify the model, only
significant effects were included. Stress was significantly related to only reassurance of
worth (β = .38, p = .03). Stress also had negative direct effects on the DAS (β = -.36, p =
.00), but not on the PTGI (β = -.04, p = .59).
Social integration was positively related to both the DAS (β = .32, p = .000, and to
the PTGI (β = .24, p = .05). Guidance was positively related to the PTGI (β = .43, p = .02),
but not to the DAS. Reassurance of worth was negatively related to the PTGI (β = -.38, p =
.02).
Using Sobel’s test of indirect effects (Sobel, 1988), only social integration appeared
to serve as a mediator of the relations between stress and the DAS (z = 1.82, p = .05), and
the PTGI (z = 2.52, p = .01).
Coping styles. Since the eight different coping factors measured can be
conceptualized as containing both positive and negative attributes, the use of the total coping
score in analyses provides little information. As an initial attempt to examine specific styles
of coping, a variable was computed to designate a problem-focused coping style by
subtracting scores from the coping sub-scale “emotion-focused coping” from scores on the
coping sub-scale “problem-focused coping.” Positive scores on this variable therefore
represent a more problem-focused coping style, while negative scores represent a more
emotion-focused coping style.
As a first step in examining the role of coping style in post-divorce processes,
hierarchical regression analyses were carried out to examine the effect of coping style over
40
and above control variables on the scores of adjustment and posttraumatic psychological
growth measures. The coping style used following divorce significantly predicted scores on
the Divorce Adjustment Scale (R2 change = .03, p = .01), but not on the Post-Traumatic
Growth Inventory. On all measures, higher scores on problem-focused coping style were
associated with greater adjustment and growth.
Because the strength of the relationships between problem-focused coping style and
measures of posttraumatic psychological growth were not great enough to support a
mediating effect, coping style was examined for its ability to moderate the effect of divorcerelated stress on the dependent variables. Three coping styles were computed based on the
mean and quartile ranges of the continuous coping style variable, representing a primarily
problem-focused style, a primarily emotion-focused style, and a neutral or mixed style. A
series of 2 x 2 analyses of variance were conducted to examine the interactions between
stress and coping style on the dependent variables. The results of these ANOVA, while
showing significant main effects, did not indicate a significant interaction between stress and
coping style on either dependent measure. This suggests that while the use of a problemfocused coping style has significant utility in predicting greater adjustment and
psychological growth following divorce, it does not moderate the effects of stress on these
post-divorce processes.
Because problem-focused vs. emotion-focused coping represents only one proposed
dimension of coping style, further analyses were conducted to examine the effects of more
specific coping factors. According to the mediational model, stress leads to increases in one
or more coping strategies. Depending upon the nature of the coping strategy, these
increased coping efforts may, in turn, lead to increased adjustment and posttraumatic
psychological growth. A mediational analysis of the independent contribution of each
coping strategy to the prediction of adjustment and growth over and above the other coping
strategies showed no significant relationships (see Figure 6).
Hypothesis V: Relationship between gender, social support, coping styles, and
adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth. Independent-samples t-tests were
conducted to evaluate the hypothesis that there would be differences in men and women on
measures of social support and coping, and on specific sub-types of social support and
41
coping. Table 10 displays the mean, standard deviation, t-score, and significance level for
each test.
Mean scores for coping sub-types were statistically significant for 3 of 8 measures,
with women reporting greater use of these coping strategies than men. The means of the
remaining 5 strategies were not statistically significant, and they varied in whether men or
women reported greater use. In addition, means for the two combined sub-types, problemfocused coping and emotion-focused coping, were not significantly different between men
and women.
On measures of social support, mean differences were significant on 4 of the 6 subtypes and on the total social support measure, with women reporting higher perceived social
support than men. Though not statistically significant, mean scores for women were also
higher on the other 2 sub-types.
In order to examine whether social support moderates the effect of gender on divorce
adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth, a series of 2 x 2 analyses of variance
was conducted to evaluate the interactions between gender and social support on all
dependent measures. The total social support scores were dichotomized based on the mean
and median, with scores at or below 100 representing low perception of social support and
scores above 100 representing high perception of social support. The mean and standard
deviation for each dependent variable as a function of the two factors are presented in Table
11. The results of these ANOVA indicated no significant interactions between gender and
social support for divorce adjustment or measures of posttraumatic psychological growth.
In order to examine whether relationship status moderates the effect of social support
on divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth, a series of 2 x 2 analyses of
variance were conducted to evaluate the interactions between relationship status and social
support on all dependent measures. The mean and standard deviation for each dependent
variable as a function of the two factors are presented in Table 13. The results of these
ANOVA indicated no significant interactions between current relationship status and social
support for divorce adjustment or measures of posttraumatic psychological growth.
Additional Analyses. To further clarify the role of gender in the post-divorce
adjustment/growth model, several additional relationships between variables were explored.
Since correlations were significant between sex of the participant and both “who initiated
42
the divorce” and “agreement with the custody decision”, the interactions between these
relationships on measures of divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth
were examined.
In order to examine whether initiating the divorce and agreement with the custody
decision moderate the effect of gender on divorce adjustment and posttraumatic
psychological growth, a series of 2 x 2 analyses of variance were conducted to evaluate the
interactions between the variables on all dependent measures. The mean and standard
deviation for each dependent variable as a function of the two factors are presented in Table
14. On the DAS and PTGI, main effects were significant for both divorce decision and
agreement with custody status, indicating that both of these factors influence post-divorce
adjustment and psychological growth. However, there were no significant interactions
between these factors and gender on either dependent measure.
Comparing the DAS to the PTGI. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated
between the six dimensions of the DAS and five dimensions of the PTGI in order to identify
overlapping and/or divergent factors. Table 15 displays the correlations. Statistically
significant associations were found between five DAS dimensions and all five PTGI
dimensions, suggesting that the DAS and PTGI may measure similar constructs, or that the
presence of a mediating effect exists.
Multiple regression analyses were used to test the mediating effect of divorce
adjustment as the mechanism through which the independent variables influence
posttraumatic psychological growth (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Holmbeck, 1997). A mediating
effect is indicated when the regression coefficients of the independent variables are reduced
when the proposed mediating variable is entered into the regression equation. For this
study, regression coefficients and standard errors of the coefficients were entered into a
formula for testing the significance of the reduction. Calculations were performed via a
website calculation tool (Preacher & Leonardelli, 2004) using the Goodman version of the
Sobel test (Baron & Kenney, 1986). The resulting z-scores and p values can be seen in
Table 16. The reduction in the regression coefficients of the independent variables when the
DAS was controlled was significant for the variables education, agreement with custody
status, and appraised stress. However, when the reverse analysis was conducted to test
whether psychological growth mediates the effects of the independent variables on
43
adjustment, the reduction in regression coefficients was significant for the variables sex and
emotional stability.
These results suggest that in the case of divorce, neither adjustment nor
psychological growth is requisite to the presence of the other. They appear to represent two
different constructs predicted by some common, as well as some differing, individual and
event factors. The relationships between various factors and the dependent variables are
presented in a revised model of post-divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological
growth, illustrated by Figure 7.
DISCUSSION
The major objectives of this study were to examine the validity and dimensionality
of posttraumatic growth following divorce, to clarify the relationship between adjustment to
divorce and subsequent psychological growth, and to examine the effects of specific types of
coping resources and types of social support resources on post-divorce adjustment and
posttraumatic psychological growth, with special attention to gender differences. While the
literature describes many studies that have helped identify factors associated with postdivorce adjustment, few have captured the complexity or process of post-divorce
adjustment, or examined the potential for positive outcomes. This study examined the
question of whether adjustment and psychological growth represent two separate outcomes,
or whether adjustment precedes psychological growth in the post-divorce process, by
identifying and clarifying some of the predictive factors they may share, as well as those that
differ. Clarification of the relationships identified here provides a beginning step for
understanding the role of posttraumatic psychological growth within the context of the
divorce process.
Individual and Event Characteristics as Predictors of Post-Divorce Adjustment and
Growth
Several pre-divorce demographic and individual factors, as well as characteristics of
the event, have been shown in the literature to have predictive utility in models of both postdivorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth. While these findings were
confirmed by this study for a portion of the variables, some differences suggest that the
process toward adjustment differs from the process toward psychological growth following
44
divorce. Examination of these variables, both individually and collectively, may help to
clarify both processes.
Sex of participant. Women reported higher scores on measures of both divorce
adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth, though the correlation and regression
coefficient were significant for growth alone. This significant finding is consistent with the
previous literature. Women scored higher than men on the PTGI in studies that assessed
psychological growth following a variety of stressful events (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). A
study specifically examining the effects of divorce by Wallerstein (1986) found that four
times as many women as men reported psychological growth following divorce. One
explanation for this finding may be that while women may experience problems in the initial
divorce process, they are also more open to experiencing divorce as an opportunity for
positive change.
While some studies have also found that women report greater adjustment than men
following divorce, the overall findings are mixed (Amato, 2000). The results of this study
also suggest that there is little or no difference between men and women on scores of
divorce adjustment. Previous research suggests that women generally report more stress
early in the divorce process, while men report more stress later in the divorce process
(Spanier & Thompson, 1984). Therefore, one explanation for this finding may be that
adjustment differences were not examined on a year-to-year basis, but were examined in
combination for participants who were not yet legally divorced to those divorced 6 or more
years, thereby equalizing adjustment levels across time. The fact that more women
responded to the survey than men may play a role in the above results as well. In this study,
women were more likely to have initiated the divorce, were more likely to have custody of
the children, and reported greater agreement with the custody decision. Men reported
higher incomes than women. The complexity of examining multiple variables at different
points in the divorce process for men and women was beyond the scope of this project, but
provides an interesting topic for future exploration.
Socio-Economic Status. Two factors related to socio-economic status were
examined in this study, income and education. Higher income was related to higher scores
on the measure of divorce adjustment, but not to posttraumatic psychological growth.
45
Income was not found to significantly predict either adjustment or growth in regression
analyses, and was therefore dropped as an independent variable.
While the literature on posttraumatic psychological growth does not indicate a
relationship between income and growth, previous studies of divorce have found financial
resources to be related to post-divorce adjustment (Pledge, 1992; Zavoina, 1996). One
explanation for the mixed findings is that in this study, income may be confounded with
other variables. For example, the survey questionnaire requested that participants report
household income rather than individual income, which may be influenced by whether or
not the participant has remarried or is living with a romantic partner. Also, this study did
not distinguish between pre-divorce income and post-divorce income. In terms of postdivorce stress and adjustment, the relative change in income may be a more useful predictor
of the divorce process.
Higher levels of education were significantly related to higher scores on measures of
both divorce adjustment and psychological growth. Education was also found to predict
both adjustment and growth in regression analyses. The literature on the divorce process
links education level to more positive post-divorce adjustment (Pledge, 1992; Zavoina,
1996). The literature supposes that education, as a general indicator of SES, provides
greater access to tactical as well as social resources, as well as greater resilience of selfesteem and role identity. These factors have been linked to psychological growth as well
(Schaefer & Moos, 1992; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). Therefore, in this study, a
participant’s level of education appears to provide a stronger indicator of SES than does
income.
Though not a direct indicator of SES, participants’ race was also included as an
independent variable in initial analyses, but was found to be unrelated to any other variable,
including divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth. This finding is most
likely a reflection of the relative homogeneity of the sample rather than a true indication that
no racial differences exist in the divorce process.
Previous Psychological Problems. Participants’ reports of experiencing
psychological problems prior to the divorce, specifically having received psychological
treatment in the past or having a problem with drugs or alcohol, were unrelated to scores on
measures of divorce adjustment or posttraumatic psychological growth. As a fair number of
46
participants responded positively to one or both questions (26.4%), it is unlikely that there
was a significant occurrence of either underreporting or response bias. This suggests that
having a previous psychological or substance abuse problem is not necessarily a deterrent to
either successful post-divorce adjustment or subsequent psychological growth.
Personality Characteristics. Two factors related to personality characteristics were
examined in this study, extroversion and emotional stability. High levels of both
extroversion and emotional stability were found to be significantly correlated to higher
scores on measures of divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth as well as
to each other. However, in subsequent regression analyses, only emotional stability
significantly predicted both adjustment and growth. Therefore, extroversion was dropped as
an independent variable, leaving the measure of emotional stability as the remaining
personality variable.
In the divorce literature, emotional stability has been linked to satisfactory postdivorce adjustment (Kurdek & Blisk, 1983; Brammer, 1991). Likewise, the growth
literature has linked emotional stability (or neuroticism) to posttraumatic psychological
growth (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). The results of this study are consistent with both sets
of literature, suggesting that high emotional stability prior to divorce indeed sets the stage
for more effective adjustment and the recognition of positive consequences to adversity.
The typical positive self-perceptions associated with emotional stability would lead to the
hypothesis that individuals high on this trait would be more able to find adversity as a source
of personal growth. These individuals might be particularly likely to meet the challenge of
adversity through a philosophical re-orientation and a new direction in life plans. Individual
differences seem to be magnified in times of transition or crisis, as people rely on those
personal characteristics and well-practiced behavioral strategies that have worked in the
past.
Personality is typically defined as the intrinsic organization of an individual’s mental
world that is stable over time and consistent over situations (Piedmont, 1998). This study
also makes the assumption that pre-crisis personality can be inferred from post-crisis
assessment. However, it is important to note that though personality factors in this study
have been conceptualized as stable traits, the transactional nature of most divorce and
growth models introduces the possibility that personality changes may occur throughout and
47
following the divorce process. Prospective designs may be the only way to adequately
investigate the role of personality characteristics in models of adjustment and growth.
Event Characteristics. This study examined the utility of factors related to the
divorce itself in predicting post-divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth.
Participants’ responses to the question, “who initiated the divorce” were not related to scores
on the measures of adjustment or growth. Though this factor has been found in previous
studies to predict post-divorce adjustment (Brammer, 1991; Graff, 2001), the lack of
significant correlations to adjustment in this study may be a reflection of the larger sample
size, suggesting that many other factors influence adjustment to a greater degree.
Participants’ legal custody status in relation to their children was not significantly
related to divorce adjustment or posttraumatic psychological growth; however, participants’
agreement with the custody decision was significantly related to both adjustment and
growth. Participants who agreed with the custody decision reported higher scores on both
dependent measures, suggesting that satisfaction with custody status predicts both postdivorce adjustment and psychological growth. This finding is consistent with previous
studies in the divorce literature (Jacobs, 1986; Graff, 2001) in which men who shared joint
legal custody of their children reported greater satisfaction in the arrangement, even when
this did not necessarily include equal or joint physical custody. While no specific
relationship has been examined between custody status and posttraumatic psychological
growth, issues of the controllability of events have (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996; Armeli et
al., 2001). These findings suggest that it is not the custody arrangement per se that effects
post-divorce adjustment or perceptions of psychological growth, but the amount of control
an individual perceives to have over the events and subsequent circumstances surrounding
divorce.
In addition to the above independent variables, several hypotheses were ventured
regarding the mediating and moderating effects of additional variables on both post-divorce
adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth.
Hypothesis I: Relationship between stressfulness of divorce and adjustment and
posttraumatic psychological growth. This study examined the relationship between the
appraised stressfulness of the divorce for participants and post-divorce adjustment and
growth. The results showed negative correlations between participants’ responses on the
48
measure of appraised stress to scores on both dependent measures. As predicted by the
hypothesis, greater stressfulness was associated with lower scores on divorce adjustment. A
somewhat weaker, though significant relationship was found between greater stressfulness
and lower scores on posttraumatic psychological growth, which is inconsistent with the
hypothesized outcome.
Further analyses examined the predictive utility of appraised stress over and above
other independent variables. As hypothesized, participants’ appraisals of the stressfulness of
the divorce significantly predicted divorce adjustment, with greater stressfulness associated
with lower adjustment scores. Furthermore, appraised stress was found to mediate the effect
of the independent variables on divorce adjustment.
Mediating variables are most often conceptualized as transformational processes
internal to the organism (Baron & Kenny, 1986), or as the generative mechanism through
which the independent variables are able to influence the dependent variable (Holmbeck,
1997). Using this definition, the stressfulness of divorce can well be described as the
combined influence of individual, social, and environmental factors on an individual’s
overall perception of the divorce. This perception, or appraised stress, in turn influences the
ability of an individual to adjust to the new situation, both tactically and psychologically.
Factors such as control over the divorce process, the predictability of divorce, and the
impact of the divorce on various aspects of life, to name a few, all contribute to an
individual’s assessment of stress.
Amato (2001) proposed that an individual’s perceptions of the events surrounding
divorce may mediate the effects of individual or situational characteristics. For example,
moving one’s household may be interpreted as a stressful event, or may be interpreted as a
positive outcome if moving involves separation from negative influences and greater
personal control, as it may for some divorcing individuals. The findings of this study are
consistent with this approach, suggesting that how a person interprets the events associated
with divorce is more critical to adjustment than the demographic characteristics of the
individual or the events themselves.
This study also examined the predictive utility of appraised stress over and above
other independent variables for posttraumatic psychological growth. It was proposed that
greater stress would be associated with greater growth. Contrary to the hypothesis,
49
participants’ appraisals of the stressfulness of the divorce did not significantly predict
growth, nor was the association positive, as predicted. Furthermore, appraised stress was
not found to mediate the effect of the independent variables on posttraumatic psychological
growth. It should be noted, however, that only linear regression analyses were used, while
in fact the relationship between appraised stress and posttraumatic psychological growth
may be non-linear.
The literature on posttraumatic psychological growth provides some evidence that
increased appraisal of the stressfulness of an event is associated with increased reports of
growth (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996; Park et al., 1996; Armeli et al., 2001). However,
comparisons of appraised stress between studies has proved challenging for several reasons.
First, many studies examine at one time a multitude of stressors, from work-related
problems or child leaving home to major catastrophes and life-threatening illnesses,
necessarily resulting in a broader range of responses than would be expected in a study of a
single category of stressor. And while these studies typically report mean scores and
standard deviations, few specify the absolute range of scores. Second, there has been
inconsistent use of measures of appraised stress, which again makes direct comparison
difficult. For example, one seminal study used the Traumatic Stress Schedule (Norris,1990
in Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1994) to divide subjects into high stress and low stress categories,
but did not report either means or ranges for these response.
While it has been suggested that a minimum threshold of stress must be crossed
before events have sufficient power to produce the level of disruption necessary for growth
to occur, the precise relationship between posttraumatic growth and psychological distress is
still a matter of investigation (Tedeschi, Park, & Calhoun, 1998). The results of this study
suggest that, at least in the case of divorce as a life-stressor, the threshold of stress required
to induce psychological growth may differ from that of other life stressors, or is not linear in
nature.
Clearly, we do not yet understand the relationship between psychological distress
and later personal growth. Intuitively, it seems reasonable to assume that psychological
distress inhibits posttraumatic growth in the short-term. Presumably, people need to at least
partially resolve their depression and anger before the positive consequences of an event can
develop or be recognized. But psychological distress is a catalyst for change. We need
50
studies that will enable us to better understand the conditions under which psychological
distress hinders or facilitates posttraumatic growth, including the analysis of non-linear
relationships.
Longitudinal studies are imperative to understanding the process of posttraumatic
growth. Although some people undergo quantum change, most often, posttraumatic growth
is the outcome of a developmental process that follows and initial stage of emotional distress
and disorganization. Months or years of struggle may ensue before divorce people find
meaning in their plight and grow from the experience.
Hypothesis II: Relationship between length of time since divorce and adjustment
and posttraumatic psychological growth. The effect of “time since divorce” on both
divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth was examined in this study. As
predicted, as the number of years since divorce increased, participants reported higher levels
of post-divorce adjustment. While there was a significant correlation between participants’
reports of the number of years since the divorce and scores on the measure of divorce
adjustment, no such relationship was found with posttraumatic growth.
Further analyses examined the predictive utility of “time since divorce” over and
above other independent variables. As hypothesized, the number of years since the divorce
significantly predicted divorce adjustment, with more time elapsed associated with higher
adjustment scores. Also as predicted, the increase in adjustment was greatest in the first
three years following divorce. These findings are consistent with the previous divorce
research (Tschann et al., 1989; Booth & Amato, 1991; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002).
Because the appraised stressfulness of the divorce was conceptualized to mediate the
effects of independent variables on adjustment and growth, it was important to understand
whether the passage of time was related to appraised stress. Specifically, if the passage of
time ameliorated the level of stressfulness reported by participants, then the mediating
strength of appraised stress would itself be called into question. However, the results of a
one-way anova of the “number of years since divorce” on appraised stress were not
significant. This suggests that participants were able to recall the level of stress they
experienced at the time of their divorce, regardless of how much time had elapsed.
“Time since divorce” was found to moderate the effect of stress on divorce
adjustment. In general terms, a moderator is a qualitative or quantitative variable that
51
affects the direction and/or strength of the relation between an independent variable and a
dependent variable (Baron & Kenney, 1986). In this study, participants who reported higher
levels of appraised stress reported the greatest increase in post-divorce adjustment over time,
whereas those who reported lower levels of appraised stress reported similar levels of
adjustment regardless of the amount of time elapsed since the divorce.
This finding makes intuitive sense, in that individuals who view their divorce as less
stressful are able to adjust quite readily to the tactical and emotional changes that occur.
Individuals who consider their divorce to be highly stressful take longer to adjust or “find
their footing.” The very tactical and emotional upheavals that lead to the divorce being
appraised as stressful may also require that more momentous lifestyle changes be made. For
example, the divorce that results in a significant reduction in financial resources, as it does
for many women (Myers, 1989; Pledge, 1992), may also precipitate multiple changes such
as the loss of personal belongings, moving, or job retraining. These changes, by nature of
their impact, may require more time to resolve than less critical factors.
Despite the multiple crises involved in divorce, most divorced people show a return
to pre-divorce levels of stress after about two to three years (Booth & Amato, 1991).
Hetherington & Kelly (2002) described adjustment to divorce as a “speed bump in the road,
with most people presumably no worse off for the experience several years post-divorce.
The findings of this study are consistent with these reports in terms of adjustment.
What, then, of posttraumatic psychological growth? Calhoun & Tedeschi (1998),
point out that the assessment of growth as it relates to the amount of time that has elapsed
since the traumatic event is an important topic for future research. Nevertheless, few
previous studies have specifically examined the effects of time on posttraumatic
psychological growth.
This study hypothesized that “time since divorce” would also have predictive value
in relation to growth, and that “time since divorce” would also moderate the effect of stress
on growth in a similar fashion to its effect on divorce adjustment. Neither relationship was
supported by the results, suggesting that while time may facilitate adjustment and the return
to pre-divorce functioning, time alone is not sufficient to facilitate growth.
One explanation for these results may be that some aspects of posttraumatic growth
might appear soon after the occurrence of a crisis, whereas other aspects might not be
52
evident until years have elapsed. Also, the predictors of posttraumatic growth might vary as
a function of the time frame; for example, event severity might serve as a significant
positive predictor of posttraumatic growth, but only when growth is assessed years after the
trauma. A limitation of the current study was that the sample size was insufficient for the
examination of growth patterns within each time stage as defined by years since divorce.
Two additional factors complicate the examination of the effect of elapsed time as it
is specifically related to the divorce process. First, most studies examine time in discrete
increments, broken down by an arbitrary range (i.e., 1 year since divorce, 2 years since
divorce). The divorce process, however, may be better described in terms of the passage of
event markers, such as when the divorce is legally finalized, rather than by time, per se.
Second, as in many studies, time since divorce was defined in this study by the number of
years since the divorce was final, without accounting for the time elapsed since the physical
separation of participants and their former spouses. Certainly, the adjustment and growth
process may have long ago been completed for an individual who has been separated for
several years prior to filing for divorce. Research designs that examine the pattern of
growth at each point in the process, and also account for both the passage of events as well
as chronological time, will provide useful data to answer these questions.
Hypothesis III: Relationship between new relationship status and adjustment and
posttraumatic psychological growth. Associations between participants’ current
relationship status and divorce adjustment and psychological growth were examined in this
study. New relationship status was significantly correlated with both divorce adjustment
and posttraumatic psychological growth, with the strength of the new relationship associated
with higher scores on both dependent measures. Further analysis examined the predictive
utility of new relationship status.
As hypothesized, new relationship status significantly predicted higher scores on
divorce adjustment over and above that of other independent variables. In the divorce
literature, studies have shown that psychological well-being and general adjustment are
higher among individuals who have a new romantic partner (Tschann et al., 1989; Stone,
2001). A new intimate relationship facilitates a return to pre-divorce levels of self-esteem,
provides companionship, and allows one to resume an identity as a member of a couple
(Wang & Amato, 2000).
53
New relationship status also predicted posttraumatic psychological growth. This is
contrary to the prediction that individuals who had entered into a new relationship would
show lower levels of posttraumatic psychological growth than individuals who have not yet
entered a new relationship. A major premise of the growth literature is the concept that
disruption must precede the integration that marks psychological growth following trauma.
When faced with a stressful life situation, an individual may fail to disrupt by either ignoring
the pain or pulling together too quickly without adequately making changes (Flach, 1988).
Entering into a new relationship soon after the divorce may ameliorate loneliness, loss of
self-esteem, or financial difficulties, but may in turn hinder the process of gaining new
insights and making the meaningful changes that constitute growth.
The findings of this study might be explained by the fact that the survey
questionnaire did not determine the time elapsed between the divorce and the beginning of
the new relationship. While involvement in a new relationship soon after divorce may prove
a hindrance to growth, for individuals who have already begun the growth process following
the trauma of divorce, a new relationship may serve to solidify the positive changes and
attitudes they have experienced.
Participants’ involvement in a new relationship was also examined for its ability to
moderate the effect of stress on divorce adjustment and psychological growth. Moderating
effects were again significant for posttraumatic psychological growth, but not for divorce
adjustment. In this study, participants who reported lower levels of stress reported greater
psychological growth when in an important relationship compared with those who were not
involved in a relationship, whereas those who reported higher levels of stress reported
similar levels of psychological growth regardless of relationship status.
A limitation to this study is its lack of information regarding the quality of the new
relationship. While the data suggests that for most participants a new romantic relationship
was related to more positive growth and adjustment, this may not be true of every new
relationship. Assessment of the quality of the new relationship in future studies will help to
determine the role a new relationship may play in post-divorce adjustment and growth.
Additional Analyses: Relationship between counseling and adjustment and
posttraumatic psychological growth. This study examined the association between
receiving divorce counseling and divorce adjustment or psychological growth. Participants’
54
positive response to the question “Have you received counseling related to your divorce”
was positively correlated to higher scores on the measure of posttraumatic psychological
growth. Further analyses showed that receiving counseling significantly predicted
posttraumatic growth over and above other independent variables.
However, when counseling was examined for its utility in moderating the effects of
stress on divorce adjustment and posttraumatic growth, interactive effects were found only
for divorce adjustment. Participants who reported higher levels of stress reported greater
adjustment when they received divorce counseling compared to participants who did not
receive counseling, whereas those who reported lower levels of stress reported similar levels
of adjustment regardless of whether or not they received counseling.
The effect of counseling has not been examined extensively in either the divorce or
the growth literatures. While it makes intuitive sense that receiving counseling during the
divorce process would provide positive benefits, divorce is a common occurrence, and
despite the significant ramifications of divorce, most individuals do not seek professional
help in dealing with divorce (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). The results of this study suggest,
however, that counseling would be especially beneficial to individuals who experience
extreme stress related to their divorces.
The positive association with posttraumatic psychological growth also suggests that
counseling may facilitate the growth process. As with social support, the opportunity to
process the traumatic event, particularly with the guidance of a professional, may enable an
individual to make meaning of the divorce as well as to begin to consider positive
consequences.
It is important to note, however, that in this study, no distinction was made between
counseling received prior to the divorce and counseling received during or after the divorce
process was initiated. The nature of the counseling, especially whether it involved making
the initial decision to divorce, may influence its affect on both adjustment and growth.
Hypothesis IV: Relationship of social support and coping style to adjustment and
posttraumatic psychological growth. This study examined the roles of perceived social
support and coping style in mediating the effects of stressors on divorce adjustment and
posttraumatic psychological growth.
55
High scores on the measure of total perceived social support where positively
correlated with high scores on measures of adjustment and psychological growth following
divorce. Social support also predicted higher scores on divorce adjustment and
psychological growth over an above other independent variables. The results of this study
also support the hypothesis that social support mediates the effects of individual and divorce
characteristics on both divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth, though
social support does not appear to mediate the effects of gender on dependent variables. This
issue will be addressed later.
The mediating role of social support to post-divorce adjustment and growth is one of
the most robust findings of this study. It is evident that the availability of social support is a
pivotal component to all aspects of recovery following a traumatic event, suggesting that
social support may provide the mechanism through which the individual and event
characteristics of divorce influence subsequent adjustment and psychological growth. Social
resources may enable individuals to muster effective coping strategies and redefine the event
in a more positive light.
In the divorce literature, social support is one of the most consistently reported
factors associated with successful adjustment (Booth & Amato, 1991; Hetherington & Kelly,
2002). Research also suggests a role for social resources, either actual or perceived, in
predicting posttraumatic psychological growth. The link between social resources and
growth suggest that social support may enable people to interpret the stressful experience in
a less threatening way because of the positive background context. Social support may also
provide opportunities for individuals to discuss and process the event, enabling people to
make meaning and identify positive aspects (Janoff-Bulman, 1999). The concept of
meaning making, or cognitive restructuring, involves an individual’s attempts to assimilate
and make congruent the occurrence of the stressful experience within the context of their
world view (Park & Folkman, 1997). Having others available to provide the emotional,
tangible, and esteem support necessary to complete these tasks may be a crucial aspect to
recovery from stressful life events such as divorce.
In examining the mediating effects of specific types of social support, only social
integration (a sense of belonging or feeling part of a group) is supported as a mediator of
divorce adjustment. In contrast, social integration, guidance (receiving advice and
56
information), and reassurance of worth (receiving positive evaluation) all had mediating
relationships with posttraumatic growth. These differences suggest that specific forms of
social support may provide the assistance necessary for the unique tasks involved in postdivorce adjustment versus psychological growth. It will be important for future studies to
examine both the perception of social support, but also the means by which it is attained.
The role of social integration (feeling that one belongs or is part of a group) as a
mediator suggests that support groups may be an effective means of supporting individuals
going through divorce. As societal attitudes toward divorce shift and there is less stigma
involved, more people may feel less alienated and isolated following divorce. Also, the role
of opportunity for nurturance suggests that responsibility toward others is an important
component of adjustment and growth. For most divorcing individuals, this refers to
children, though it may involve other care-taking roles as well. This is consistent with
previous research that both children and adults function better following divorce if both
parents play an active role in parenting. Officials in a role to affect change in divorce
outcomes need to recognize the importance of keeping family relationships intact following
divorce.
Similar to adequate social support, coping is also seen as a stabilizing factor that can
help individuals maintain adaptation throughout stressful periods. Though seeking and
accessing social support can be considered a coping activity, coping encompasses both
cognitive and behavioral efforts to reduce or eliminate stressful conditions and deal with
emotional distress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This study examined the association
between coping style used by participants following divorce and their reports of adjustment
and psychological growth.
The Ways of Coping measure used in this study provides eight different coping
factors, which are evenly divided between the two general forms of coping, problemfocused coping and emotion-focused coping. Problem-focused coping activities involve
active efforts to change the circumstances such as problem solving and seeking information;
emotion-focused strategies enable individuals to manage distress, including asserting selfcontrol and escape-coping; and cognitive coping, such as positive reappraisal, enables a
person to change the meaning of stressors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). A problem-focused
coping style was found to be positively correlated to both higher adjustment and higher
57
posttraumatic psychological growth. Further analysis found that problem-focused coping
predicted higher scores on divorce adjustment over and above other independent variables,
though it did not significantly predict growth over and above other variables. The results
did not support the mediating model of problem-focused coping, which hypothesized that
this coping style used following divorce would mediate the effects of stressors on postdivorce adjustment and growth. Mediating relationships between specific coping strategies
and divorce adjustment and growth also were not supported by the data.
One explanation for these results may be the way the coping measure itself was
structured for this study. The measure was used to assess coping style along a single
dimension anchored by emotion-focused coping at one end and problem-focused coping at
the other. However, coping processes have been conceptualized to involve several different
aspects, with far more complexity than can be captured in a linear fashion.
The divorce literature suggests that a problem-focused coping style is most often
associated with greater divorce adjustment (Booth & Amato, 1991). Problem-focused
coping, by virtue of his active nature, may be more likely to address the tactical and
environmental aspects of divorce, such as dealing with moving one’s household or finding a
new job. Posttraumatic psychological growth, however, involves a rebuilding of one’s inner
world and the development of a new worldview (Janoff-Bulman, 1999). Aspects of
emotion-focused and cognitive coping may be more important to the kind of restructuring
involved in growth. In addition, different types of stressors may call on different coping
styles, depending on situational characteristics such as the nature and severity of the crisis.
While the data did not support a mediating model for the eight separate coping factors,
future research might involve cluster analysis to determine which combinations of factors
contribute to either divorce adjustment or posttraumatic growth.
Hypothesis V: Relationship between gender and perceived social support and
coping styles. Gender differences were examined in this study with regard to receiving
specific types of social support and to coping styles used following divorce. Women
reported significantly higher scores than men on 4 out of 6 sub-types of perceived social
support: guidance, attachment, reassurance of worth, and opportunity to nurture. Women
also reported higher scores on the two remaining sub-types, reliable alliance and social
integration, though these differences were not significant.
58
Despite the findings that social support mediates the effects of most individual and
event characteristics on adjustment and growth, the lack of mediational support for gender
suggests that there are additional factors that contribute to the effect of gender on adjustment
and growth. Significant correlations between gender and divorce characteristics such as
“who initiated the divorce” and “agreement with the custody decision” suggest that these
may play a role in the gender effects observed. In this study, women were more likely than
men to have initiated the divorce and to agree with the ultimate custody decision. Analyses
of both these factors indicated non-significant direct effects on both post-divorce adjustment
and posttraumatic growth.
As mentioned previously, the divorce literature is consistent in showing that women
report higher levels of social support. It is interesting to note that in this study, this was true
of all sub-types as well as overall social support. With social support significantly
associated with both adjustment and growth, it seems logical to suppose that social support
provides the means to adjust to divorce, as well as to perceive benefits from the experience.
This provides strong evidence that women report greater adjustment and posttraumatic
growth because they are able to access and make use of social resources.
Since social support was not found to mediate the effect of gender on divorce
adjustment and posttraumatic growth, this study examined its ability to moderate the effect
of gender on the dependent variables. Though the main effects remained significant, no
interaction was found. Individuals, both men and women, who reported receiving higher
levels of social support during their divorce also reported higher levels of both divorce
adjustment and growth.
The difference in coping styles used by men and women following divorce were
also examined in this study. Eight coping factors, as well as the pooled sub-types, problemfocused coping and emotion-focused coping, were examined. Women used 3 of the 8
coping factors more frequently than men: seeking social support, planful problem solving,
and positive reappraisal. None of the remaining five factors showed significant differences
between men and women, and they varied in whether men or women reported greater use.
Means for the two pooled sub-types, problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping,
were not significantly different between men and women.
59
Given the previous results related to social support, it is no surprise that this study
also found that women cope by seeking social support more than men do. Planful problem
solving and positive reappraisal are also coping methods that may be related to social
support, in that women reported receiving more social support than men in the form of
guidance. Altogether, greater social resources and active coping methods facilitate more
positive reappraisal, which is the first step in achieving psychological growth following a
stressful event.
Despite these preliminary results, the role of gender in posttraumatic growth remains
elusive, at best. Although we suspect that women and men may differ in the nature of their
posttraumatic growth experiences if not in the prevalence of these experiences, even this is a
call too soon to make.
Comparing Divorce Adjustment and Posttraumatic Growth.
A major purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between posttraumatic
psychological growth and the divorce adjustment process. The results of this study suggest
that while adjustment to divorce shares several common factors with posttraumatic growth,
there are some differences in both predictive factors as well as the path through which each
occurs. Despite the prediction that growth may be the logical outcome of successful
adjustment, examination of the mediating effect of adjustment was inconclusive.
Some previous research has shown a similar positive association between adjustment
and perceived benefits in cancer victims (Taylor et al., 1984) and in students (Wild, 2001).
Other researchers have found no relationship between adjustment and growth (Park, 1998).
One possible explanation for these mixed findings is that traditional measures of adjustment
may be insensitive to positive change.
In comparing the dimensions of divorce adjustment with the dimensions of
posttraumatic growth, significant associations were found between most dimensions, which
might lead one to believe that adjustment and growth are similar constructs. However, the
results described above show that while many common individual and event factors predict
the two, other factors differentially predict adjustment and posttraumatic growth.
Furthermore, examination of the specific domains and items included in the measures
suggests that they assess different constructs. The Divorce Adjustment Scale, which
assesses six domains of functioning, appears to be more comprehensive in its
60
conceptualization of adjustment than the more traditional method of assessing psychological
symptoms. Nevertheless, it does not include items relating to benefits or positive outcomes
of divorce. The Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory, by including items referencing positive
changes, specifically addresses the positive outcomes of stressful events. For example, two
domains of the Divorce Adjustment Scale assess participants’ levels of anger toward and
disentanglement from their divorcing spouse—aspects that are unrelated to growth items.
Likewise, the Spiritual Change domain of the Post-Traumatic Growth Scale contains items
not included in the DAS.
While adjustment has typically been conceptualized as the absence of psychological
symptoms and a return to pre-divorce levels of functioning, growth implies some movement
beyond a return to the status quo. It is especially important to remember that growth and
distress are not mutually exclusive—some degree of continuing distress may be needed for
posttraumatic psychological growth to occur. Persons who experience posttraumatic growth
need to have had room to grow, but be healthy enough to cope relatively successfully with
their emotional distress. There may be a curvilinear relationship between psychological
health or adjustment and the tendency to experience growth.
Taking the position that perceiving benefits or reporting growth is conceptually
distinct from adjustment argues for an examination of the relationship between these two
sets of variables. These associations may be understood or explained in a number of
different ways: Growth may reflect actual change in well-being or enhanced functioning,
growth may enable enhanced functioning directly, or both growth and adjustment may be
related to some other underlying adaptive variable related to personality functioning and
coping. When posttraumatic growth is found to be related to adjustment variables in crosssectional research, the direction of the influence is unclear and third variable problems are
an ever-present issue. Longitudinal and especially prospective designs are needed to clarify
this relationship.
In examining the concept of divorce adjustment, it is important to highlight the
utility of the short–form of the Divorce Adjustment Scale developed for this study.
Reliability was strong for the total score as well as for all sub-scales, with ranges, mean item
scores, and standard deviations nearly identical to those of the longer form. These results
61
suggest that this 50-item version retains the validity of the longer 100-item version, with the
added advantage of brevity, making it particularly suitable for research purposes.
Examining the construct of posttraumatic psychological growth
The finding of psychological growth after divorce parallels reports of perceived
benefits of others life stressors. These findings suggest that extreme and chronic life events
such as divorce, while not life-threatening, may nevertheless be appropriately viewed as
psychosocial transitions that have the potential for positive as well as negative
consequences.
Another goal of this study was to examine whether the dimensionality of growth
measures was maintained for divorce as a specific stressor. Armeli et al. (2001) pointed out
that the dimensionality of the growth construct may vary as a function of the type of life
event, as well as other variables such as personality variables, time elapsed, etc. The results
of this study confirmed the five-factor theoretical model of the PTGI, proposed and tested by
Tedeschi and Calhoun (1996), as well as a single factor model of the SRGS (Park et al.,
1996). Though both measures appear to assess the same underlying construct, the unidimensionality of the SRGS may be a function of the more restricted response range. Also,
while analyses indicated that the patterns of relationships between independent variables and
both the PTGI and SRGS were similar, in most cases, the use of the SRGS did not produce
statistically significant results.
Cohen, Hettler, & Pane (1998) pointed out that domains of post-traumatic growth
might vary as a function of the type of crisis, and the characteristics of victims. For
example, certain types of events might inevitably result in positive changes in life
philosophy. At a more complex level, the factor structure or composition of posttraumatic
growth domains might also vary as a function of crisis and respondent. Therefore, an
advantage of using the PTGI over the SRGS is that by examining independent thriving
domains, one can more clearly associate those domains with specific predictive factors and
outcomes following a stressful event. This is a definite advantage for the PTGI, because it
allows researchers to test for varying effect on specific growth domains (e.g., personal
relationships, religious beliefs) as a function of such variables as type of stressor or
individual characteristics.
62
Nevertheless, additional research with diverse samples is needed to confirm the
factor structure of the PTGI. In this study, though factor analysis confirmed the 5-factor
model of the PTGI, the differences in means and standard deviations between domains of
growth were small, though similar to those reported by Tedeschi & Calhoun (1996). If,
however, the relationship between domains remains constant across varying stressors and/or
degrees of stress, the usefulness of a multi-dimensional measure could be called into
question.
Another advantage of the PTGI over the SRGS is that it more explicitly assesses
behavioral changes in the domain of “new possibilities.” This raises the issue, however, of
the degree to which posttraumatic psychological growth involves anything more than an
individual’s perception of change. While there is consensus that these changes are
positively valued, the question remains whether these positive outcomes can be labeled
“growth.” Since the term “growth” implies a progressive development or forward-moving
path, growth might be conceptualized as involving observable behavioral changes or
changes in perspective that are enduring and facilitate greater adaptive ability. Based on the
data derived from these measures, there is not enough information to conclude that
posttraumatic growth following divorce involves clear and observable changes in how the
person continues to function years after the divorce has occurred.
There are several ways to attempt to validate self-report measures of posttraumatic
growth. One is to obtain corroborating reports of posttraumatic growth from victims’
significant others. Another is to obtain additional self-report data that includes actual
behavioral changes that may correspond to the internal changes reported on the PTGI and
SRGS.
For some aspects of posttraumatic growth, traditional quantitative and “objective”
approaches can be useful. However, for other aspects of growth, reliance must be placed on
qualitative approaches that encourage and allow an exploration of the individual’s own
understanding of his or her experience, but within a set of procedures that permits some
evaluation of the validity or “trustworthiness” of the data. Open-ended interview questions
do not restrict the respondent to the types of posttraumatic growth that the researcher has
defined in advance of the study. Consequently, the individual’s responses will probably be
63
genuine and unique, rather than a reaction to the demand characteristics of the research
context.
Does growth last? Certainly, abundant evidence indicates that the negative effects of
trauma have lasting effects (Aldwin & Sutton, 1998). But does the growth that people report
remain? These questions have been largely unaddressed to this point. It could be the case
that after many years, a life crisis experience may be fully integrated into an individual’s
current adaptation and both positive and negative effects may be attenuated. Once again,
longitudinal studies may provide useful information in response to these questions.
Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Directions
Understanding the social and emotional ramifications of divorce has received less
than its share of attention in recent years, considering the high prevalence of divorce in this
country. Identifying the factors most often related to successful adjustment is useful not
only for clinicians, but also for individuals who are struggling with divorce and for the
others involved in their lives. Successful adjustment to divorce has many social and
economic implications, i.e. reducing the costs associated with psychological distress such as
lost wages, etc. Furthermore, the possibility of positive benefits from divorce such as
psychological growth adds even greater impetus to the need to identify and clarify the
factors and processes of adjustment and growth.
Several issues regarding sampling and methodology limit conclusions that can be
drawn from the present study. First, because participation was voluntary, the study is
subject to the problem of self-selection bias. Individuals who have adjusted well and/or
have experienced growth as a result of their divorce may have been more likely to respond
to the survey, while individuals who continue to experience difficulty adjusting may have
perceived responding as too distressing or intrusive. This possibility is somewhat supported
by the results, in which the mean item response for both the Divorce Adjustment Scale and
the Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory was greater than the mid-point response. The
relatively low return rate of surveys may also be a reflection of this bias, though the high
rate of undeliverable surveys also suggests that far few surveys were received than intended.
The postal service does not provide a means to ascertain how many surveys were actually
delivered to addressees.
64
Second, the sample contained few ethnic minorities, and therefore is not necessarily
representative of all divorced parents, either in Montgomery and Warren counties, the state
of Ohio, or nationally. Because random sampling was used, it was presumed that the sample
would reflect the overall percentages of ethnic minorities in their respective counties. While
it is impossible to determine why the responding sample contained few ethnic minorities, a
couple of possibilities exist: a) the sampling pool itself was not representative of the countywide population (i.e. divorce rates differ between ethnic groups), or b) individuals of ethnic
minorities were less inclined to respond to the survey than Caucasian individuals.
The reliability and validity of the variables examined in this study may have been
increased by using multiple measures of each construct. This approach has been
recommended to deal with both the multidimensional nature of constructs such as social
support and the presence of measurement error in assessments of internal psychological
states. While there were many common factors for both adjustment and growth, in a
multidimensional model of adjustment, positive and negative domains of functioning may
be multi-faceted and may be independent from one another. Measures of distress may not
detect positive outcomes, and various positive aspects of adjustment may be distinct from
others. Combining a broad range of positive adjustment measures may better explicate the
adjustment-growth relationship (Park, 1998).
This cross-sectional study presented a “snapshot” view of post-divorce adjustment
and growth at one time following divorce. It would be useful to seek to replicate the present
findings with longitudinal data to investigate longer term models of the effects of stressors,
coping style, and social support on post-divorce adjustment and posttraumatic growth. This
would cast light on the temporal ordering of events. Statistical analyses that identify nonlinear relationships might detect more complex relationships. Also, a more in-depth analysis
of adjustment and growth concepts might be achieved through qualitative data. In addition,
the causal links proposed by this mediating model represent a unidirectional pattern that may
not fully describe what is most likely a reciprocal process. For example, increased
perceptions of social support may also influence one’s perceptions of self, which may in turn
increase reports of emotional stability. More sophisticated analytic procedures and models
are needed to capture the reciprocal nature of these processes.
65
Despite these limitations, this study is one of few to test an integrated and
theoretically derived model of post-divorce adjustment and psychological growth, and it
offers several important implications for practice. Understanding the complex interactions
between the individual, social, and divorce characteristics that influence post-divorce
adjustment has the potential to enhance clinicians’ successful interventions with this
population.
Divorce is a common occurrence in present-day society, yet divorce interventions are
infrequently subjected to methodologically sophisticated studies, particularly randomized
trials (Emery, Kitzmann, & Waldron, 1999). The increasing use of standardized measures
that examine the multiple domains of adjustment will shed more light on the divorce
process. For example, the abbreviated Divorce Adjustment Scale may prove as effective yet
efficient in assessing adjustment as more cumbersome measures, both in research as well as
in individual practice.
Many divorcing adults seek treatment, not for a psychological disorder, but for help
in dealing with the subclinical distress caused by the family disruption. Interventions may
take place at various points in time before, during or after divorce. The focus of these
interventions, specifically with divorcing adults, often include such psychological issues as
coping with the lack of a support system, task overload, emotional overload, self-esteem,
and depression, as well as more practical issues such as financial planning, legal issues, and
career planning. These and other topics provide fertile ground for processing not only the
negative consequences of divorce, but for exploring the potential for enhanced well-being
and positive growth. Understanding the factors that facilitate growth, as highlighted in this
study, will better enable clinicians to offer suggestions and support to their clients.
As with divorce, traditional treatments following exposure to a multitude of extreme
stressors have focused on intervention for those who develop severe emotional disorders and
who come to the attention of treatment providers. This approach does not emphasize
prevention or growth enhancement. Professional intervention aimed at exploiting the
principles of posttraumatic growth have not been well developed. In addition to helping to
develop specific coping strategies such as strengthening social support or perceived control,
helping individuals to view stressful life changes as opportunities to experience flexibility
and resilience may be an important contribution to personal growth.
66
It is especially important in clinical work to be sensitive to the possibilities for
growth that survivors of trauma often explore. The clinician has to be open to the possibility
of growth. Second the clinician must recognize and support the individual’s views of their
trauma and growth, and understand that different persons experiencing posttraumatic growth
may have very different perspectives. Clinicians must learn to offer the growth perspective
without minimizing the negative effects of the trauma. Finally, it is important for clinicians
who recognize and support the possibilities for posttraumatic growth not to perceive those
who do not report these outcomes as having failed to manage trauma constructively.
This study provided a small step in studying the positive aspects of stress on
developmental processes, and helped to paint a clearer picture of how and under what
conditions posttraumatic growth occurs. Continued research in this area will shed important
light on the origins, development, and maintenance of mental health throughout the lifespan,
and will make great strides toward actually defining the nature of posttraumatic growth and
the influences it exerts in the lives of individuals and their adjustment.
67
REFERENCES
Affleck, G. & Tennen, H. (1996). Construing benefits from adversity: Adaptational
significance and dispositional underpinnings. Journal of Personality, 64, 899-922.
Ahrons, C.R., & Rodgers, R.H. (1987). Divorced Families: A Multidisciplinary
Developmental View. New York: Norton.
Aldwin, C.M. (1994). Stress, Coping, and Development: An Integrative Perspective. New
York: Guilford Press.
Aldwin, C.M. & Sutton, K.J. (1998). A developmental perspective on posttraumatic growth.
In R.G. Tedeschi, C.L. Park, & L.G. Calhoun (Eds.), Posttraumatic Growth: Positive
Changes in the Aftermath of Crisis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Aldwin, C.M., Sutton, K.J., & Lachman, M. (1996). The development of coping resources
in adulthood. Journal of Personality, 64(4), 837-867.
Armeli, S., Gunthert, K.C., & Cohen, L.H. (2001). Stressor appraisals, coping, and postevent outcomes: The dimensionality and antecedents of stress-related growth.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20(3), 366-395.
Amato, P.R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 1269-1288.
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Birnbaum,G.E., Orr, I., Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1997). When marriage breaks up—
does attachment style contribute to coping and mental health? Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 14(5), 643-654.
Booth, A. & Amato, P.R. (1991). Divorce and psychological stress. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 32, 396-407.
Brammer, L.M. (1991). How to Cope with Life Transitions: The Challenge of Personal
Change. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.
Britt, T. W., Adler, A.B., Bartone, P.T. (2001). Deriving benefits from stressful events: The
role of engagement in meaningful work and hardiness. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 6, 53-63.
68
Calhoun, L. G. & Tedeschi, R.G. (1998). Posttraumatic Growth: Future Directions. In R.
G. Tedeschi, C.L. Park, & L.G. Calhoun, (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth: Positive
changes in the aftermath of crisis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Calhoun, L.G., & Tedeschi, R.G. (1999). Facilitating posttraumatic growth: A clinician’s
guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, L.H., Cimbolic, K., Armeli, S.R., & Hettler, T.R. (1998). Quantitative Assessment
of Thriving. Journal of Social Issues, 54(2), 323-335.
Cohen, L.H., Hettler, T.R., & Pane, N. (1998). Assessment of Posttraumatic Growth. In R.
G. Tedeschi, C.L. Park, & L.G. Calhoun, (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth: Positive
changes in the aftermath of crisis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cordova, M.J., Cunningham, L.L.C., Carlson, C.R., & Andrykoski, M.A. (2001).
Posttraumatic growth following breast cancer: A controlled comparison study.
Health Psychology, 20(3), 176-185.
Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cutrona, C.E., & Russell, D. (1987). The provisions of social relationships and adaptation
to stress. In W.H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships
(Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cutrona, C.E. & Russell, D.W. (1990). Type of social support and specific stress: Toward a
theory of optimal matching. In B.R. Sarason, I.G. Sarason & G.R. Pierce (Eds.),
Social support: An interactional view. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Derogatis, L.R. (1994). Symptom Checklist—90—Revised. National Computer Systems,
Inc.: Minneapolis, MN.
Dolan, M.A. & Hoffman, C.D. (1998). The differential effects of marital and custodial
status on perceptions of mothers and fathers. Journal of divorce and remarriage,
29(3/4), 55-64.
Emery, R.E., Kitzmann, K.M., & Waldron, M. (1999). Psychological interventions for
separated and divorced families. In E.M. Heatherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce,
single parenting, and remarriage: A risk and resiliency perspective. Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Erickson, E.H. (1950, 1963). Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.
69
Fisher, B. (1978). When your relationship ends: The divorce process rebuilding blocks.
Eastwood Printing: Denver, CO.
Flach, F. (1988). Resilience: Discovering a New Strength at Times of Stress. New York:
Random House/Ballantine.
Folkman, S. (1997). Positive psychological states and coping with severe stress. Social
Science and Medicine, 45, 1207-1221.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R.S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., Delongis, A., & Gruen, R.J. (1986).
Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter
outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 571-579.
Frankl, V. (1963). Man’s search for meaning. New York: Washington Square Press.
Frisch, M.B. (1994). Quality of Life Inventory. National Computer Systems, Inc.:
Minneapolis, MN.
Graff, R.L. (2001). Post-Divorce Adjustment in Adults: The Effects of Child-Custody Status
and Sex-Role Identification. Unpublished master’s thesis, Miami University,
Oxford, OH.
Gray, J.D. & Silver, R.C. (1990). Opposite sides of the same coin: Former spouses’
divergent perspectives in coping with their divorce. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 59, 1180-1192.
Guttmann, J. (1993). Divorce in Psychosocial Perspective: Theory and Research.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hansell, J.H. (1988). Cognitive and Affective Determinants of Coping: A Study of Divorced
women. Unpublished dissertation, University of Michigan.
Hetherington, E.M. & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse: Divorce reconsidered.
New York: W.W. Norton.
Holahan, C.J., Moos, R.H., & Bonin, L. (1997). Social support, coping, and psychological
adjustment: A resource model. In G.R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I.G. Sarason, & B.R.
Sarason (Eds.), Sourcebook of social support and personality. New York: Plenum
Press.
Holahan, C.J., Moos, R.H. & Schaefer, J.A. (1996). Coping, stress resistance, and growth:
Conceptualizing adaptive functioning. In M. Zeidner & N.S. Endler (Eds.),
Handbook of Coping. New York: Wiley.
70
Holmbeck, G.N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the
study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric
psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599-609.
Jacobs, J.W. (1986). Divorce and Fatherhood: The Struggle for Parental Identity.
Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press, Inc.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma.
New York: The Free Press.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1999). Rebuilding shattered assumptions after traumatic life events:
Coping Processes and Outcomes. In C.R. Snider (Ed.), Coping: The Psychology of
What Works. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kaplan, H.B. (1999). Toward an understanding of resilience: A critical review of definitions
and models. In M.D. Glantz & J.L. Johnson (Eds.). Resilience and Development:
Positive Life Adaptations. New York: Kluwer/Plenum Publishers.
Kegan, R. (1982). The Evolving Self: Problem and Process in Human Development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kitson, G.C. (1992). Portrait of divorce: Adjustment to marital breakdown. New York:
The Guilford Press.
Kobasa, S.C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into
hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1-11.
Kurdek, L.A. & Blisk, D. (1983). Dimensions and correlates of mothers’ divorce
experiences. Journal of Divorce, 6, 1-24.
Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Luthar, S.S., Cicchetti, D. & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical
evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543-562.
Masten, A.S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American
Psychologist, 56(3), 227-238.
McCubbin, H., & Patterson, J. (1983). The family stress process: The double ABCX model
of adjustment and adaptation. In H. McCubbin, M. Sussman, & J. Patterson (Eds.),
Social stress and the family: Advances and developments in family stress theory and
research. New York: Haworth Press.
Myers, M.F., (1989). Men and divorce. New York: Guilford Press.
71
O’Leary, M., Franzoni, J., Brack, G., & Zirps, F. (1996). Divorcing parents: Factors related
to coping and adjustment. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 25(3-4), 85-103.
O’Leary, V., & Ickovics, J.R. (1995). Resilience and thriving in response to challenge: An
opportunity for a paradigm shift in women’s health. Women’s health: Research on
gender, behavior, and policy, 1, 121-142.
Park, C.L. (1998). Stress-related growth and thriving through coping: The roles of
personality and cognitive processes. Journal of Social Issues, 54:2, 267-277.
Park, C.L. (1998). Implications of posttraumatic growth for individuals. In R. G. Tedeschi,
C.L. Park, & L.G. Calhoun, (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth: Positive changes in the
aftermath of crisis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Park, C.L. & Blumberg, C.J. (2002). Disclosing trauma through writing: Testing the
meaning-making hypothesis. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 26(5), 597-616.
Park, C.L., Cohen, L.H. & Murch, R.L. (1996). Assessment and prediction of stress-related
growth. Journal of Personality, 64:1, 71-105.
Park, C.L. & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of
General Psychology, 1, 115-144.
Piedmont, R.L. (1998). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Clinical and Research
Applications. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Pledge, D.S. (1992). Marital separation/divorce: A review of individual responses to a
major life stressor. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 17(3/4), 151-181.
Preacher, K.J. & Leonardelli, G.J. (2004). An interactive calculation tool for mediation
tests. Retrieved March 18, 2004, from University of North Carolina Web site:
http://www.unc.edu/~preacher/sobel/sobel.htm.
Riessman, C.K. (1990). Divorce talk: Women and men make sense of personal
relationships. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books.
Sansom, D. & Farnill, D. (1997). Stress following marriage breakdown: does social support
play a role? Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 26(3-4), 39-49.
Schaefer, J.A., & Moos, R.H. (1992). Life crises and personal growth. In B.N. Carpenter
(Ed.), Personal coping: Theory, research, and application. Westport, CT: Praeger.
72
Schaefer, J.A., & Moos, R.H. (1998). The context for posttraumatic growth: Life crises,
individual and social resources, and coping. In R. G. Tedeschi, C.L. Park, & L.G.
Calhoun, (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth: Positive changes in the aftermath of crisis.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Seligman, M.E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Sobel, M.E. (1988). Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models. In J. S.
Long (Ed.), Common Problems/Proper Solutions: Avoiding Error in Quantitative
Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Spanier, G.B. & Thompson, L. (1984). Parting: The aftermath of separation and divorce.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Stewart, A.J., Copeland, A.P., Chester, N.L., Malley, J.E., & Barenbaum, N.B. (1997).
Separating Together: How Divorce Transforms Families. New York: Guilford Press.
Stone, G. (2001). Father postdivorce well-being: An exploratory model. Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 162(4), 460-477.
Taylor, S.E., Lichtman, R.R., & Wood, J.V. (1984). Attributions, beliefs in control, and
adjustment to breast cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 489502.
Tedeschi, R.G., & Calhoun, L.G. (1995). Trauma and transformation: Growing in the
aftermath of suffering. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tedeschi, R.G., & Calhoun, L.G. (1996). The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring
the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 455-471.
Tedeschi, R.G., Park, C.L., & Calhoun, L.G. (1998). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual
issues. In R. G. Tedeschi, C.L. Park, & L.G. Calhoun, (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth:
Positive changes in the aftermath of crisis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Tennen, H. & Affleck, G. (1999). Finding benefits in adversity. In C.R. Snider (Ed.),
Coping: The Psychology of What Works. New York: Oxford University Press.
Thabes, V. (1997). A survey analysis of women’s long-term, postdivorce adjustment.
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 27(3-4), 163-175.
73
Tschann, J.M., Johnston, J.P., & Wallerstein, J.S. (1989). Resources, stressors, and
attachment as predictors of adult adjustment after divorce: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 32(3-4), 101-118.
Updegraff, J.A., & Taylor, S.E. (2000). From vulnerability to growth: Positive and negative
effects of stressful life events. In S.E. Taylor & R.J. Francis (Eds.) Loss and trauma:
General and close relationship perspectives. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). U.S. Census Report 2000. Washington, DC: Author.
Wallerstein, J.S. & Kelly, J.B. (1980). Surviving the Breakup: How Children & Parents
Cope with Divorce. New York: Basic Books.
Wallerstein, J. S. (1986). Women after divorce: Preliminary report from a 10-year followup. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56, 65-77.
Wang, H. & Amato, P. (2000). Predictors of divorce adjustment: stressors, resources, and
definitions. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 62, 655-669.
Wild, N. (2001). Psychological adjustment, coping, and emotion regulation as predictors of
posttraumatic growth. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Windsor,
Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Wright, M.O. (1998). Resilience. In E.A. Blechman & K.D. Brownell (Eds.) Behavioral
medicine and women: A comprehensive handbook. New York: Guilford.
Zavoina, R.R. (1996). A study of social support, socioeconomic well-being, attitudes toward
women’s roles, self-efficacy, and women’s psychological adjustment after divorce.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, TN.
74
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Quantitative Variables
Variable
N
Minimum
Maximum Range
Mean
Total
SD
Mean
Item
Extroversion
140
13
45
32
30.3
6.0
3.36
Emotional
Stability
140
13
41
28
29.3
5.2
3.25
Appraised
Stress
140
33
93
60
64.0
12.9
3.20
Social
Support
140
49
120
71
99.9
15.2
4.16
Coping
Style
139
30
59
29
45.7
6.0
1.93
Divorce
Adjustment
139
78
246
168
194.6
29.9
3.89
PTGI
139
31
105
74
78.5
13.6
3.74
SRGS
140
0
30
30
18.6
7.3
1.25
75
Table 2. Factor Loadings of 21 Items of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory
a
Factor Loadings
I
II
III
IV
V
PTGI Factors and Items
Factor I: Relating to Others (19.6% of Variance)
6. Knowing that I can count on people
in times of trouble.
8. A sense of closeness with others.
9. A willingness to express my emotions.
15. Having compassion for others.
16. Putting effort into my relationships.
20. I learned a great deal about how
wonderful people are.
21. I accept needing others.
.52
.65
.60b
.70b
.69b
.77b
.82b
Factor II: New Possibilities (18% of Variance)
3. I developed new interests.
7. I established a new path for my life.
11. I’m able to do better things with my life.
14. New opportunities are available which
wouldn’t have been otherwise.
17. I’m more likely to try to change things
which need changing.
.75b
.70b
.57
.66b
.35c
Factor III: Personal Strength (15.4% of Variance)
4. A feeling of self-reliance.
.61
10. Knowing I can handle difficulties.
12. Being able to accept the way things work out.
19. I discovered that I’m stronger than I thought I was.
Factor IV: Spiritual Change (8% of Variance)
5. A better understanding of spiritual matters.
18. I have a stronger religious faith.
Factor V: Appreciation of Life (9.5% of Variance)
1. My priorities about what is important in life.
2. An appreciation for the value of my own life.
13. Appreciating each day.
a
.62
.44c
.71b
.57b
.76b
.74b
.66b
.80b
.64b
.42
Factors and Items are based on factor loadings confirmed in previous research (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996).
Items loading greater than .55 without loading greater than .4 on any other factor
c
Second highest loading
b
76
Table 3. Correlations Between Demographic, Moderating, Mediating, and Dependent
Variables (n=140)
Variable
1. Sex
1
2
3
1.0
.01
.07
1.0
2. Race
3. Education
4. Income
5. Extroversion
4
5
6
7
-.19* .15
-.01
-.08
-.33** -.38** -.32**
-.03
.06
.04
.04
-.07
.02
.04
1.0
.45** .24** .22** .07
.06
.11
-.05
1.0
-.00
.02
-.04
.16
-.00
-.20*
.28** .01
-.05
-.22*
1.0
.10
-.01
-.11
1.0
.23** .07
-.03
.13
.14
1.0
.30** .07
6. Emotional Stability
1.0
7. Psychological Problems
8. Who Decided to Divorce
9. Legal Custody
.02
8
9
1.0
10. Agreement with Custody
10
.20*
1.0
11. Appraised Stress
12. Counseling
13. New Relationship
14. Years Since Divorce
15. Perceived Social Support
16. Coping Style
17. Subjective Adjustment
18. DAS
19. PTGI
20. SRGS
(Table Continues)
77
Table 3. (continued)
Variable
11
1.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
-.23** -.13
.03
-.03
.19*
.06
.27** .16
.31** .19*
2.
.08
.08
-.14
.01
.02
.03
.05
.10
.01
3.
.07
-.17* -.03
.08
.35** .16
.13
.26** .21*
.09
4.
.12
-.19* -.23** .23** .25** .13
.05
.24** .11
.05
5.
-.11
-.16
6.
-.22** -.13
7.
-.01
8.
-.07
-.17
.05
.45** .30** .24** .32** .22** .17*
.08
.10
.44** .16
.40** .60** .38** .18*
.23** .03
-.06
.08
.06
.10
.06
-.01
-.03
.06
.06
.04
-.03
-.01
.01
-.08
-.06
-.13
-.17*
9.
.19*
.02
.03
-.07
-.10
.05
-.20* -.11
10.
.33** -.04
.01
.06
-.38* -.10
11.
1.0
-.18* .16
.05
-.30** -.18* -.58** -.49** -.20* -.02
1.0
.07
-.07
-.16
1.0
-.12
-.17* -.16
-.24** -.23** -.22* 0.18*
1.0
-.04
.05
.07
1.0
.33** .55** .67** .54** .23**
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
1.0
17.
18.
-.41** -.35** -.29** -.14
-.02
-.10
-.27** -.21*
.23** .06
.29** .19*
1.0
.68** .49** .30**
.09
.58** .25**
1.0
20.
.04
.21*
1.0
19.
Note:
-.11
-.20* -.13
.67**
1.0
* correlation is significant at the .05 level
** correlation is significant at the .01 level
78
Table 4. Correlations Between Divorce Adjustment Scales and Subjective Adjustment
(n=139)
Variable
1
1. DAS-Anger
1.0
2. DAS-Grief Work
Completed
3. DAS-Self-Esteem
2
3
5
6
.46** .37** .24** .19** -.02
1.0
7
8
.48** .40**
.88** .59** .59** .53** .94** .64**
1.0
4. DAS-Social Self-Worth
.57** .71** .51** .93** .59**
1.0
5. DAS-Social Trust
.37** .55** .70** .47**
1.0
6. DAS-Disentanglement
.30** .68** .36**
1.0
7. DAS-TOTAL
.68** .52**
1.0
8. Subjective Adjustment
Note:
4
.68**
1.0
* correlation is significant at the .05 level
** correlation is significant at the .01 level
79
Table 5. Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Post-Divorce
Adjustment and Posttraumatic Psychological Growth
B
se
β
Sex
Education
Emotional Stability
Agreement
5.24
3.96
3.01
-18.43
4.38
2.02
.40
6.34
.08
.13
.52
-.21
Counseling
Years since Divorce
New Relationship
Appraised Stress
Social Support
Coping Style
-.34
3.6
-5.6
-.84
.91
1.3
4.13
1.24
1.26
.15
.14
.46
-.01
.19
-.27
-.36
.47
.17
Sex
Education
Emotional Stability
Agreement
7.42
1.58
.84
-5.29
2.26
1.05
.20
3.24
.26
.12
.32
-.13
Counseling
Years since Divorce
New Relationship
Appraised Stress
Social Support
Coping Style
-5.4
.28
-2.3
-.00
.36
.29
2.08
.66
.67
.09
3.15
.24
-.19
.03
-.25
-.04
.40
.10
Adjustment Measures &
Variable
Significance of Regressions
Divorce Adjustment
Scale (n=139)
R = .66, p = .000**
R Square Change
= .00, p = .93
= .03, p = .00*
= .07, p = .00**
= .10, p = .00**
= .14, p = .00**
= .03, p = .01*
Post-Traumatic
Growth Scale (n=140)
R = .51, p = .000**
R Square Change
= .04, p = .01*
= .00, p = .67
= .06, p = .00**
= .00, p = .59
= .11, p = .00**
= .01, p = .23
Note:
* significant at the .05 level
** significant at the .01 level
80
Table 6. Significance of the Mediation of Social Support Between Independent Variables
and Divorce Adjustment and Posttraumatic Psychological Growth.
Dependent
Variable
Independent
Variable
z-score
p
Divorce
Adjustment
Scale
Sex
Education
Emotional Stability
Agreement
Appraised Stress
1.15
1.82
4.41
2.56
2.83
.25
.07
.00
.01
.01
PostTraumatic
Growth
Scale
Sex
Education
Emotional Stability
Agreement
Appraised Stress
.80
2.99
3.00
2.52
1.96
.43
.00
.00
.01
.05
81
Table 7. Mean Scores on the Divorce Adjustment Scale for Participants at each Year Since
Divorce and Differences between Means
Years Since Divorce
1
(n=15)
Mean DAS Score
Difference Scores
175.5
∆ 12.2
2
(n=35)
187.7
∆ 16.7
3
(n=26)
204.4
∆ -11.8
4
(n=27)
192.6
∆ 15.0
5
(n=20)
207.6
∆ - 9.16
6
(n=16)
198.4
82
Table 8. Multiple Regressions of Divorce Adjustment and Posttraumatic Psychological
Growth on Appraised Stress and Intervening Variables
Predictors
β
R2
R2
Change
-.36
.20
.58
22.2**
.79
.60
.02
-.31
-.22
.58
.15**
-.31
.58
.00
-.38
-.09
.54
.11**
-.68
.56
.02
-.05
.03
.27
.00
.74
.28
.02
.01
-.25
.32
.06**
.94
.35
.03*
-.10
-.21
.31
.04*
-.23
.31
.00
F
Change
DAS
Step 1
Appraised Stress
Years since divorce
Step 2
Stress x Years
Step 1
Appraised Stress
Relationship Status
Step 2
Stress x Relationship
Step 1
Appraised Stress
Counseling
Step 2
Stress x Counseling
6.8**
.96
4.4*
PTGI
Step 1
Appraised Stress
Years Since Divorce
Step 2
Stress x Years
Step 1
Appraised Stress
Relationship Status
Step 2
Stress x Relationship
Step 1
Appraised Stress
Counseling
Step 2
Stress x Counseling
3.4
5.8*
.32
Note: * correlation is significant at the .05 level. ** correlation is significant at the .01 level
83
Table 9. Descriptive Statistics and Significance of Interaction for ANOVA Between
Appraised Stress and Moderating Variables on Dependent Measures
Dependent
Appraised Stress
Moderator
Mean
SD
F
p
Years Since Divorce
DAS
Low (n=39)
High (n=37)
PTGI
Low (n=39)
High (n=37)
1 (n=10)
2 (n=17)
3 (n=12)
1 (n=5)
2 (n=18)
3 (n=14)
196.9
202.7
213.4
132.8
173.7
196.6
28.9
24.8
22.1
43.1
30.0
21.0
3.4
.04*
1 (n=10)
2 (n=17)
3 (n=12)
1 (n=5)
2 (n=18)
3 (n=14)
81.6
81.2
81.8
64.4
76.1
80.1
12.8
13.4
14.5
25.6
12.9
12.6
1.4
.26
Yes (n=36)
No (n=34)
Yes (n=27)
No (n=42)
213.2
199.7
188.1
178.7
21.9
22.3
31.2
31.2
.20
.66
Yes (n=36)
No (n=34)
Yes (n=27)
No (n=42)
85.6
75.0
75.9
76.8
12.3
11.0
14.0
14.4
6.8
.01**
Yes (n=22)
No (n=48)
Yes (n=32)
No (n=37)
206.7
206.6
192.3
173.7
25.4
22.0
27.4
32.2
3.8
.05*
Yes (n=22)
No (n=48)
Yes (n=32)
No (n=37)
86.1
77.9
80.9
72.6
11.9
12.5
12.6
14.1
.00
.97
New Relationship
DAS
Low (n=70)
High (n=69)
PTGI
Low (n=70)
High (n=69)
Counseling
DAS
Low (n=70)
High (n=69)
PTGI
Low (n=70)
High (n=69)
Note:
* significant at the .05 level
** significant at the .01 level
84
Table 10. Descriptive Statistics and T-Tests between Genders on Social Support and
Coping Measures (n=139)
Measure
Gender
Mean
male (n=46) female (n=93)
SD
T
p
Social Support
Guidance
Male
Female
16.1
17.4
2.9
3.3
2.3
.02*
Reliable Alliance
Male
Female
16.5
17.2
3.3
3.4
1.2
.22
Attachment
Male
Female
15.1
16.5
2.9
3.4
2.4
.02*
Social Integration
Male
Female
15.7
16.5
2.6
3.2
1.5
.13
Reassurance of Worth
Male
Female
15.9
16.9
2.8
2.9
1.9
.05*
Opportunity to Nurture
Male
Female
16.6
17.8
2.5
2.2
2.9
.00**
Male
Female
95.8
102
13.8
15.5
2.3
.02*
Confrontive
Male
Female
5.8
5.3
1.6
1.4
1.9
.06
Distancing
Male
Female
3.9
4.3
1.6
1.4
1.5
.15
Self-Control
Male
Female
5.7
5.5
1.3
1.8
0.9
.40
Seeking Social Support
Male
Female
5.9
7.0
1.8
1.7
3.1
.00**
Total Social Support
Coping
(Table continues)
85
Table 10. (continued)
Measure
Gender
Mean
male (n=46) female (n=93)
SD
T
p
Coping
Accepting responsibility
Male
Female
5.4
5.1
1.6
1.7
.88
.38
Escape/Avoidance
Male
Female
5.5
4.8
2.0
2.1
1.9
.06
Planful Problem Solving
Male
Female
6.3
6.8
1.2
1.5
2.2
.03*
Positive Reappraisal
Male
Female
6.6
7.3
1.6
1.5
2.5
.01*
Problem-Focused
Male
Female
23.5
24.14
3.7
3.4
1.1
.28
Emotion-Focused
Male
Female
21.8
21.8
3.3
4.2
0.1
.91
Male
Female
45.2
46.0
5.2
6.4
0.7
.48
Total Coping
Note:
* significant at the .05 level
** significant at the .01 level
86
Table 11. Descriptive Statistics and Significance of Interactions for ANOVA Between
Gender and Social Support on Dependent Measures
Measure
Gender
Social Support
Mean
SD
Divorce
Adjustment
Scale
Male
Low (n=28)
High (n=18)
174.04
209.67
30.73
22.78
Female
Low (n=42)
High (n=51)
183.64
209.49
27.50
22.55
Male
Low (n=28)
High (n=18)
68.32
79.22
12.50
9.28
Female
Low (n=42)
High (n=51)
75.33
86.37
11.33
12.61
PTGI
Note:
* significant at the .05 level
** significant at the .01 level
87
F
p
1.05
.31
.00
.96
Table 12. Descriptive Statistics and Significance of Interactions for ANOVA Between
Gender and Relationship Status on Dependent Measures
Measure
Gender
Relationship
Mean
SD
F
p
Divorce
Adjustment
Scale
Male
Yes (n=20)
No (n=26)
195.1
205.8
35.6
24.9
.05
.83
Female
Yes (n=43)
No (n=50)
182.5
190.9
29.9
28.9
Male
Yes (n=20)
No (n=26)
74.4
71.2
13.5
11.7
.43
.51
Female
Yes (n=43)
No (n=50)
84.7
78.5
12.8
12.9
PTGI
Note:
* significant at the .05 level
** significant at the .01 level
88
Table 13. Descriptive Statistics and Significance of Interactions for ANOVA Between Social
Support and New Relationship Status on Dependent Measures
Measure
Relationship Social Support
Mean
SD
F
p
Divorce
Adjustment
Scale
Yes
Low (n=26)
High (n=37)
182.1
216.7
28.9
18.8
1.8
.19
No
Low (n=44)
High (n=32)
178.4
201.3
29.3
24.0
Yes
Low (n=26)
High (n=37)
75.0
86.0
14.4
11.5
.03
.87
No
Low (n=44)
High (n=32)
71.1
82.8
10.6
12.9
PTGI
Note:
* significant at the .05 level
** significant at the .01 level
89
Table 14. Descriptive Statistics and Significance of Interaction for ANOVA Between Gender
and Divorce Factors on Dependent Measures
Dependent
Gender
Moderator
Mean
SD
F
p
Who initiated
DAS
Male (n=46)
Female (n=93)
PTGI
Male (n=46)
Female (n=93)
1 (n=9)
2 (n=28)
3 (n=9)
1 (n=61)
2 (n=19)
3 (n=13)
204.3
180.1
196.0
198.3
191.6
204.8
13.2
35.3
32.7
23.2
40.1
28.5
.87
.42
1 (n=9)
2 (n=28)
3 (n=9)
1 (n=61)
2 (n=19)
3 (n=13)
80.7
71.0
69.6
80.9
81.4
83.7
12.3
13.0
7.8
12.9
15.1
12.5
2.2
.11
Agreed with Decision
DAS
Male (n=46)
Female (n=93)
PTGI
Male (n=46)
Female (n=93)
Note:
Yes (n=33)
No (n=13)
Yes (n=88)
No (n=5)
195.1
169.9
199.9
160.4
26.9
39.9
24.2
58.9
.82
.37
Yes (n=33)
No (n=13)
Yes (n=88)
No (n=5)
73.9
69.3
82.3
65.8
9.1
18.6
12.5
16.4
2.8
.10
* significant at the .05 level
** significant at the .01 level
90
Table 15. Correlations Between Divorce Adjustment Scale and Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory Dimensions (n=139)
Variable
1
1. DAS-Anger
1.0
2. DAS-Grief Work Completed
2
4
5
6
.46** .37** .24** .19** -.02
1.0
3. DAS-Self-Esteem
4. DAS-Social Self-Worth
5. DAS-Social Trust
6. DAS-Disentanglement
7. PTGI-Relating to others
8. PTGI-New Possibilities
9. PTGI-Personal Strength
10. PGTI-Spiritual Change
11. PTGI-Appreciation of life
Note:
3
* correlation is significant at the .05 level
** correlation is significant at the .01 level
7
-.03
8
9
10
11
.08
.11
.11
.08
.88** .59** .59** .53** .40** .55** .58** .34** .38**
1.0
.57** .71** .51** .47** .59** .58** .20*
1.0
.41**
.37** .55** .44** .59** .48** .32** .42**
1.0
.30** .35** .36** .30** .10
1.0
.18*
.39** .54** .52** .25** .40**
1.0
.67** .69** .50** .61**
1.0
.74** .46** .67**
1.0
.40** .66**
1.0
.39**
1.0
Table 16. Significance of the Mediation Between Independent Variables and Divorce
Adjustment and Posttraumatic Psychological Growth.
Mediation
Test
Independent
Variable
z-score
p
DAS
mediates
PTGI
Sex
Education
Emotional Stability
Agreement
Appraised Stress
.37
2.57
4.38
1.76
3.88
.71
.01
.00
.08
.00
PTGI
mediates
DAS
Sex
Education
Emotional Stability
Agreement
Appraised Stress
2.70
1.49
3.19
1.39
.54
.01
.14
.00
.16
.59
Table 17. Descriptive Statistics of Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory Domains
Variable
N
Minimum
Relating
To Others
139
8
New
Possibilities
139
Personal
Strength
Maximum
Mean
Total
SD
Mean
Item
35
24.74
5.7
3.53
7
25
18.96
3.6
3.79
139
5
20
16.06
2.7
4.02
Spiritual
Growth
139
2
10
7.19
1.9
3.59
Appreciation
Of Life
139
5
15
11.53
2.3
3.84
Total PTGI
139
31
105
78.47
13.6
3.74
Figure 1. Hypothesized model of post-divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth.
Gender
SES
Personality
Characteristics
Psychological
Problems
Who initiated
divorce
Custody
Status
Agreement
with custody
Appraised
Stressfulness of
the Divorce
Mediating
Variables
Perceived Social
Support &
Coping Style
Moderating Variables
Time Since Divorce
Counseling
New Relationship
Divorce
Adjustment
Psychological
Growth
Figure 2. Interaction of Appraised Stress and Time Elapsed Since Divorce on Divorce
Adjustment.
Interaction of Appraised Stress and
Time on Divorce Adjustment Scale
DAS Score
250
200
150
100
50
0
Low Stress
1
High Stress
2
Years Since Divorce
3
Low Stress
High Stress
95
Figure 3. Interaction of Appraised Stress and New Relationship Status on Posttraumatic
Psychological Growth.
PTGI Score
Interaction of Appraised Stress and
Relationship on Posttraumatic
Growth
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
72
70
68
Low Stress
High Stress
Yes
No
New
Relationship
Low Stress
High Stress
96
Figure 4. Interaction of Appraised Stress and Counseling on Divorce Adjustment.
DAS Score
Interaction of Appraised Stress and
Counseling on Divorce Adjustment
210
205
200
195
190
185
180
175
170
165
160
155
Low Stress
High Stress
Yes
NO
Counseling
Low Stress
High Stress
97
Figure 5. Mediating Effects of Social Support Factors on Divorce Adjustment and
Posttraumatic Psychological Growth.
Appraised
Stress
-.36**
DAS
-..04
.43*
Guidance
.32**
.38*
PTGI
.
Reliable
Alliance
.24*
Attachment
-.38*
Social
Integration
Reassurance
of Worth
Opportunity to
Provide
Nurturance
Note:
* correlation is significant at the .05 level
** correlation is significant at the .01 level
98
Figure 6. Mediating Effects of Coping Factors on Divorce Adjustment and Posttraumatic
Psychological Growth.
Appraised
Stress
-.36**
DAS
-.17*
-.12*
-.26**
-.14*
Confrontive
.14*
Distancing
-.57**
Self-Control
PTGI
.23**
.
.23**
Seeking Social
Support
Accepting
Responsibility
.42**
Escape/
Avoidance
Planful
Problem
Solving
Positive
Reappraisal
Note:
* correlation is significant at the .05 level
** correlation is significant at the .01 level
99
Figure 7. Revised model of post-divorce adjustment and posttraumatic psychological growth.
Gender
New
Relationship
Education
Emotional
Stability
Perceived Social
Support
Agreement
with Custody
Decision
To Growth
To Divorce
Adjustment
Appraised
Stressfulness of
the Divorce
Time Since
Divorce
Psychological
Growth
Divorce
Adjustment
Counseling
ProblemFocused
Coping Style
APPENDIX A
Letter of Introduction
Dear Ohio Resident:
We are pleased to invite you to participate in an exciting and important research study.
The purpose of this study is to investigate adults who have filed for divorce in the past five years.
Your task will be to fill out a confidential questionnaire designed to assess the degree of
adjustment to divorce, and other feelings and problems associated your divorce. This
participation will take less than 1 hour. It is important that we hear from both men and women in
all stages of the divorce process, even those who may feel that they have adjusted well and are
no longer affected by their divorce.
In appreciation for your participation, you will have an opportunity to be entered into a lottery
for a cash prize of $200. We hope that you will take advantage of this chance to help others and
to let your voice be heard. By responding to these questionnaires, you can assist the
psychological community in better understanding what factors seem to contribute to the way
parents adjust to divorce. Gaining a more complete understanding of the divorce process will
only help us to better serve our community by providing services and resources that are needed
for families to negotiate this difficult time.
While the risks associated with participation appear to be minimal, you may experience
emotional discomfort while responding to the questionnaires. Your participation is voluntary and
you are free to discontinue at any time without penalty. Your identity will remain anonymous
and all information you provide will be kept confidential. By returning this survey you are
giving consent for us to include your responses in our research. Please provide your name and a
contact phone number or email address ONLY if you wish to be entered in a lottery for
participation awards. Contact information will be destroyed once awards have been distributed
and prior to data analysis. Survey booklets will be stored in locked cabinets to which only the
researcher has access.
You may obtain a copy of the results of this study by checking the appropriate box on
your survey booklet. Keep this letter for your own records and return only the survey booklet in
the enclosed return envelope. Please feel free to contact the investigator with any questions you
may have.
Your participation is greatly appreciated and will provide a valuable service. Thank you
for your attention.
____________________________
Principal Investigator:
Robin L. Graff-Reed, M.A.
Doctoral Student, Clinical Psychology
Miami University
Oxford, OH 45056
__________________________
Committee Chairperson:
Karen Maitland Schilling, Ph.D.
101
APPENDIX B
Letter to Warren County Residents
Dear Warren County Resident:
We are pleased to invite you to join us in participating in an exciting and important
opportunity. Researchers from the Miami University Department of Psychology are conducting
a study examining the various factors involved in helping families adjust to divorce. Since
divorce is an issue that affects all of us to some degree, we feel that studies of this kind are
necessary and important. Gaining a more complete understanding of the divorce process will
only help us to better serve our community by providing services and resources that are needed
for families to negotiate this difficult time.
The researchers have contacted a random sample of county residents who have filed for
divorce in the past five years. It is important that they hear from both men and women in all
stages of the divorce process, even those who may feel that they have adjusted well and are no
longer affected by their divorce. Please be assured that the individual information you provide
will be held in strict confidentiality by Miami University, and your participation in this survey
will IN NO WAY affect your court case.
We hope that you will carefully consider participating in this project. It should take only
a small amount of your time, and will help us to gain valuable insights into your experiences.
Please assist us by filling out the enclosed questionnaire and returning it as soon as possible in
the postage-paid envelope. In appreciation for your participation, you will have an opportunity
to be entered into a lottery for a cash prize of $200. We hope that you will take advantage of this
chance to help others and to let your voice be heard.
Your participation is greatly appreciated and will provide a valuable service to all who
struggle with the consequences of divorce. Thank you for your attention,
Sincerely,
Jane Groh, MSW
Facilitator, Helping Families Succeed After Divorce
Mary Ann Rose, MSW
Facilitator, Helping Families Succeed After Divorce
102
APPENDIX C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING
THE SURVEY
We are very interested in your response to our survey. In order to make sure our
computers are able to record your responses correctly, here are some suggestions:
1. Please respond as soon as possible, but no later than June 1, 2003.
2. Respond to ALL items with your “best” answer, even if an item does not
seem to apply to you.
3. Fill in circles next to the response that most closely matches how you feel.
Please do not mark outside the circles.
Examples:
Good
()
Acceptable ( )
No good
()
4. Do not write on the survey, except to fill in circles. Please send comments
on an additional page, if you wish.
5. Be sure to provide your name and contact information for entry into our
lottery for a participant award of $200.00.
6. If you prefer to remain completely anonymous, please leave your name
blank and accept our sincere appreciation for your time and thoughtful
response.
7. Return the survey in the enclosed business reply envelope as soon as
possible, but no later than June 1, 2003. No stamp is necessary.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!
103
APPENDIX D
DIVORCE SURVEY
Please answer the following questions as they pertain to yourself and the divorce relationship.
Check the response most appropriate to your situation.
What is your age?_______
What is your sex?_______
How long were you married? ____________
When did you separate from your spouse? (Month & year) ________
When did you divorce? (Month & year) ___________
Current legal status of your marriage:
Who decided to end the marriage?
___ Separated but not filed
___ Separated but one of us has filed
___ Divorced--final decree has been granted
On what date?_____________
___ I did
___ My spouse did
___ Mutual decision
How many children do have from your marriage? _________
Number of previous marriages ________
Do you have children from a previous marriage?______ List their ages______________
I am presently:
___ remarried (If remarried, how long after divorce__________)
___ living with someone in a love-relationship
___ in an important love-relationship but not living together
___ dating, but not in an important love-relationship
____ not actively dating
What is the legal status of your children’s custody?
____ I have primary custody
____ My spouse has primary custody
____ We share joint legal custody
Who has physical custody of the children most of the time?
___ I do (in my care more than 2/3 of time)
___ My ex-spouse (in my care less than 1/3 of time)
___ Joint custody (in my care 1/3-2/3 of time)
___ Split custody (please describe_____________)
How was the custody decision made?
___ It was a mutual decision
___ It was court-ordered
Did you agree with the custody decision? ____ yes
____ no
104
My race is:
___ Caucasian ___ African-American ____Hispanic
___ Asian
___ Other
My current household income
from all sources is:
My level of education is:
___ less than $20,000
___ $20,001 to 40,000
___ $40,001 to 60,000
___ $60,001 to 100,000
___ More than $100,000
___ some high school
___ High School or GED
___ Vocational training and/or some college
___ College degree
___ Graduate or professional degree
On a scale of 1 – 5, how well do you feel that you have adjusted to your divorce? ___
Did you receive counseling related to your divorce? (please describe)____
___
Have you ever received counseling for a psychological problem? (please describe) _____
Have you ever had problems with drugs or alcohol? (please describe) _________________
Can you think of any other special circumstances about your divorce that would help us to have a better
understanding of your situation? (Please use the back or attach separate pages if
necessary)______________________________________________________________ _____
Would you be willing to be contacted for a follow-up study? ___Y
____N
Do you wish to receive a summary of the results of this study in the mail? ___Y
___N
Would you like to be entered into a drawing for participant awards? ____Y ____ N
If you answered yes to any of the previous three questions, please fill in your full name and a contact
phone number or email address below:
Name________________________________________ phone or email __________________________
105
The following statements are feelings and attitudes that people frequently experience during and
after the end of a relationship. Read each statement and decide how frequently the statement
applies to your present feelings and attitudes. Do not leave any statements blank. Choose the
appropriate response from the following:
a) almost always
b)usually
c) sometimes
d)seldom e) almost never
1. I become upset when I think about my former partner. (A)
2. I feel like crying because I feel so sad. (G)
3. I can communicate with my former partner in a calm and rational manner. (A)
4. I feel depressed. (G)
5. I feel comfortable seeing and talking to my former partner. (A)
6. I feel like I am an attractive person. (SE)
7. I feel as thought I am in a daze and the world doesn’t seem real. (G)
8. I feel I don’t have much sex appeal. (SE)
9. I am relating and interacting in many new ways with people since my separation. (SSW)
10. Joining a singles’ group would make me feel I was a loser like them. (SSW)
11. I think of my former partner as related to me rather than as a separate person (D)
12. I feel like an okay person (SE)
13. I hope my former partner is feeling as much or more emotional pain than I am (A)
14. I have close friends who know and understand me. (SE)
15. I easily become angry at my former partner. (A)
16. I am afraid to trust people who might become love-partners. (ST)
17. Because my marriage ended, I feel there must be something wrong with me. (SE)
18. I don’t want to accept the fact that our relationship is ending. (D)
19. I have given up on my former partner and I getting back together. (D)
20. I feel very frightened inside. (G)
21. I feel capable of living the kind of life I would like to live. (SE)
22. I believe if we try, my partner and I can save our relationship. (D)
23. My abdomen feels empty and hollow. (G)
24. I have feelings of romantic love for my former partner. (D)
25. I can make the decision I need to because I know and trust my feelings. (SE)
26. I would like to get even with my former partner for hurting me. (A)
27. I have really made a mess of my life. (SE)
28. I sigh a lot. (G)
29. I perform my daily activities in a mechanical and unfeeling manner. (G)
106
30. I feel capable of facing and dealing with my problems (SE)
31. I am afraid of becoming sexually involved with another person. (ST)
32. It will only be a matter of time until my partner and I get back together. (D)
33. I feel detached from activities around me as though I were watching them on a movie screen. (G)
34. I would like to continue having a sexual relationship with my former partner. (D)
35. Life is somehow passing me by. (SE)
36. I feel emotionally committed to my former partner. (D)
37. I want to be with people but I feel emotionally distant from them. (SE)
38. I am afraid of becoming emotionally close to another love-partner (ST)
39. Even on the days when I am feeling good, I may suddenly become sad and start crying. (G)
40. I can’t believe our relationship is ending. (D)
41. I wake up in the morning feeling there is no good reason to get out of bed. (G)
42. I find myself daydreaming about all the good times I had with my partner. (D)
43. People want to have a relationship with me because I feel like a lovable person. (ST)
44. I feel comfortable going to social events even though I am single. (SSW)
45. I feel emotionally insecure. (G)
46. I feel emotionally weak and helpless. (G)
47. I feel comfortable having my friends know our relationship is ending. (SSW)
48. I feel as though I am the only single person in a couples-only society. (SSW)
49. I daydream about being with and talking to my former partner. (D)
50. I need to improve my feelings of self-worth about being a wo/man. (SE)
Please answer the following questions by circling the response that best corresponds with how you
generally felt during the time of your divorce. Choose the most appropriate response from the
following:
A) Strongly Disagree
B) Disagree
C) Neutral
D) Agree
E) Strongly Agree
1. When my divorce occurred I viewed it as a significant loss.
A B C D E
2. When my divorce occurred I had help available.
A B C D E
3.
A B C D E
At the time of my divorce I felt it had serious implications for me.
4. At that time I felt the divorce was a test of my abilities.
A B C D E
5. I had previous experience with divorce (mine or someone close to me)
A B C D E
6. I had fair warning that the divorce was about to happen.
A B C D E
7. At the time of my divorce I felt I had the ability to handle it.
A B C D E
8. I had control over my divorce.
A B C D E
9. At that time, I felt that I could have prevented my divorce.
A B C D E
107
10. When my divorce occurred I constantly thought about it.
A B C D E
11. At the time of my divorce, I felt very threatened by it.
A B C D E
12. At the time of my divorce, I felt it was an extreme challenge.
A B C D E
13. I lost a lot because of my divorce.
A B C D E
14. At the time of my divorce I had someone to turn to.
A B C D E
15. When my divorce occurred I knew it had long term consequences for me.
A B C D E
16. I had never encountered a situation like divorce before.
A B C D E
17. I did not anticipate that I would ever get divorced.
A B C D E
18. When my divorce occurred I knew I could overcome it.
A B C D E
19. Once it began, I had control over decisions related to the divorce.
A B C D E
20. When my divorce occurred I had waves of strong feelings about it.
A B C D E
1) There are people I can depend on to help me if I really need it.
2) I feel that I do not have any close personal relationships with other people.
3) There is no one I can turn to for guidance in times of stress.
4) There are people who depend on me for help.
5) There are people who enjoy the same social activities I do.
6) Other people do not view me as competent.
7) I feel personally responsible for the well-being of another person.
8) I feel part of a group of people who share my attitudes and beliefs.
9) I do not think other people respect my skills and abilities.
10) If something went wrong, no one would come to my assistance.
11) I have close relationships that provide me with a sense of emotional security and well-being.
12) There is someone I could talk to about important decisions in my life.
13) I have relationships where my competence and skill are recognized.
14) There is no one who shares my interests and concerns.
15) There is no one who really relies on me for their well-being.
16) There is a trustworthy person I could turn to for advice if I were having problems.
17) I feel a strong emotional bond with at least one other person.
18) There is no one I can depend on for aid if I really need it.
19) There is no one I feel comfortable talking about problems with.
20) There are people who admire my talents and abilities.
21) I lack a feeling of intimacy with another person.
22) There is no one who likes to do the things I do.
108
23) There are people I can count on in an emergency.
24) No one needs me to care for them anymore.
We would like to find out what you did to cope with your divorce since it occurred. Please circle the
number below that best describes how much you used each strategy listed below. For each
strategy, choose from the following responses:
(0) Does not apply
(1) Not at all
(2) Some
(3) A Lot
1) Stood my ground and fought for what I wanted.
2) Refused to get too serious about the situation: tried to laugh about it.
3) Didn’t let it get to me: refused to think about it too much.
4) Tried to get the person responsible to change his or her mind.
5) Tried to keep my feelings to myself.
6) Realized I brought the problem on myself.
7) Expressed anger to the person who caused the problem
8) Hoped a miracle would happen.
9) Concentrated on what I had to do next—the next step.
10) Talked to someone about how I was feeling.
11) Changed or grew as a person in a good way.
12) Kept others from knowing how bad things were.
13) Tried not to act too hastily or follow my first hunch.
14) Criticized or lectured myself.
15) Increased my efforts to make things work.
16) Rediscovered what is important in life.
17) Talked to someone about the situation.
18) Went on as if nothing had happened.
19) Made a promise to myself that things would be different next time.
20) Wished the situation would go away or somehow be over with.
21) Talked to someone who could do something concrete about the problem.
22) Had fantasies about how things might turn out.
23) Made a plan of action and followed it.
24) Prayed or found faith in God or my religion.
109
Indicate for each of the statement below the degree to which this change occurred in your life as a
result of your divorce, using the following scale.
0= I did not experience this change as a result of my divorce.
1= I experienced this change to a very small degree as a result of my divorce.
2= I experienced this change to a small degree as a result of my divorce.
3= I experienced this change to a moderate degree as a result of my divorce.
4= I experienced this change to a great degree as a result of my divorce.
5= I experienced this change to a very great degree as a result of my divorce.
1) I changed my priorities about what is important in life.
2) I have a greater appreciation for the value of my own life.
3) I developed new interests.
4) I have a greater feeling of self-reliance.
5) I have a better understanding of spiritual matters.
6) I more clearly see that I can count on people in times of trouble.
7) I established a new path for my life.
8) I have a greater sense of closeness with others.
9) I am more willing to express my emotions.
10) I know better that I can handle difficulties.
11) I am able to do better things with my life.
12) I am better able to accept the way things work out.
13) I can better appreciate each day.
14) New opportunities are available that wouldn’t have been otherwise.
15) I have more compassion for others.
16) I put more effort into my relationships.
17) I am more likely to try to change things that need changing.
18) I have a stronger religious faith.
19) I discovered that I’m stronger than I thought I was.
20) I learned a great deal about how wonderful people are.
21) I better accept needing others.
Please respond to each item with either: "0" (not at all), "1" (somewhat), or "2" (a great deal).
Because of my divorce…
1. I learned to be nicer to others.
0
1
2
2. I feel freer to make my own decisions.
0
1
2
3. I learned that I have something of value to teach others about life.
0
1
2
110
4. I learned to be myself and not try to be what others want me to be.
0
1
2
5. I learned to work through problems and not just give up.
0
1
2
6. I learned to find more meaning in life.
0
1
2
7. I learned to how to reach out and help others.
0
1
2
8. I learned to be a more confident person.
0
1
2
9. I learned to listen more carefully when others talk to me.
0
1
2
10. I learned to be open to new information and ideas.
0
1
2
11. I learned to communicate more honestly with others.
0
1
2
12. I learned that I want to have some impact on the world.
0
1
2
13. I learned that it’s OK to ask others for help.
0
1
2
14. I learned to stand up for my personal rights.
0
1
2
15. I learned that there are more people who care about me than I thought.
0
1
2
111