women's perception of the divorce experience: a qualitative study

This article was downloaded by: [University of Utah]On: 27 November 2014, At: 09:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Divorce &RemarriagePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjdr20

Women's Perception ofthe Divorce Experience: AQualitative StudyCindy Thomas a & Marilyn Ryan aa School of Nursing, Ball State University , Muncie,IndianaPublished online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Cindy Thomas & Marilyn Ryan (2008) Women's Perception of theDivorce Experience: A Qualitative Study, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 49:3-4,210-224, DOI: 10.1080/10502550802222394

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10502550802222394

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjdr20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10502550802222394

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10502550802222394

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

9:01

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, Vol. 49(3/4) 2008Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.

210 doi:10.1080/10502550802222394

WJDR1050-25561540-4811Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, Vol. 49, No. 3-4, August 2008: pp. 1–20Journal of Divorce & Remarriage

Women’s Perception of the Divorce Experience: A Qualitative Study

Cindy Thomas and Marilyn RyanJournal of Divorce & Remarriage Cindy ThomasMarilyn Ryan

ABSTRACT. Divorce is a personal experience, often negative, and eachcouple experiences it differently. However, the divorce experience mayprovide opportunities for personal growth. The purpose of this qualitativestudy was to understand the challenges and growth opportunities womenwho have divorced experience from their own perspective. Ten womenwith similar backgrounds participated in personal interviews. Individualinterviews revealed the following themes: (a) dating reflections, (b) marriedlife, (c) self-perceptions, (d) support or lack of support, (e) family, (f) per-sonal emotions, (g) personal growth, and (h) the future. Mezirow’s (2000)theory of transformational learning was the framework used to organize thefindings to understand growth through transitional phases. This article pre-sents the findings of this study and implications for women going throughdivorce.

KEYWORDS. Dating, marriage, divorce, transformation

People around the world view marriage as a fundamental social institu-tion that varies by cultural norms, values, and traditions (Denham, 2005).Although the social structure of families varies widely, a nuclear family

Cindy Thomas, EdD, RNC, CDONA, is Assistant Professor of Nursing, andMarilyn Ryan, EdD, RN, is Professor and Associate Director, Masters Program,School of Nursing, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana.

Address correspondence to: Cindy Thomas, School of Nursing, 2000 UniversityAve., Muncie, IN 47306 (E-mail: [email protected]).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

9:01

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Cindy Thomas and Marilyn Ryan 211

has been a constant based on the legal rite of marriage. Marriage contrib-utes to the physical, emotional, and economic health of men, women, andchildren (Gebbie & Gebbie, 2005). Marriage is also one of the mostrespected and universally accepted institutions within human relation-ships. It is fundamental to the nurturing and rearing of children. However,marriages are not always lived “happily ever after.”

According to the Americans for Divorce Reform (ADR, 2007), defin-ing the divorce rate is elusive or impossible, yet it is estimated to bebetween 40% and 50% in the United States. Divorce statistics vary bycountry, state, age, religious affiliation, and income level. There may befewer divorces reported because of current lifestyles, including livingtogether before marriage, entering marriage at an older age, common-law relationships and economic circumstances (ADR, 2007; Casper &Haaga, 2005).

Divorce is one of the most common traumatic events in life(Armstrong, 2007; Bevvino & Sharkin, 2003). It can have devastatingeffects on individuals, families, and society. Divorce creates changes intraditional family compositions, living arrangements, and economic cir-cumstances (Benussi, 2006; Hardesty & Ganong, 2006; Kurdek &Kennedy, 2001; Sweeney & Horwitz, 2001; Watkins, 2006). The changein family configuration from a two-parent household to the single-parentrole can present physical, emotional, and financial challenges to thecustodial parent (Lowenstein, 2005; Montenegro & Fisher 2004; Robboy,2002; Rokach, Cohen, & Dreman, 2004). Divorce may hinder futuregoals, such as career advancement or personal ambitions. Individualslearn multiple and varied lessons from the divorce experience, somenegative and some positive.

The divorce experience may also provide opportunities for personalgrowth, although they may not be immediately apparent. Sakraida (2005)found that midlife women initiators of divorce shared self-focusedgrowth, optimism, and loss of social support and opportunities. Somewomen may feel a sense of freedom and have opportunities to explorenew challenges that they might otherwise not have sought. The economicimpacts of divorce on women such as loss of income, retirement,pensions, and insurance have been studied throughout the years. Fewstudies have focused on the emotional and personal growth areas forwomen following divorce (Benussi, 2006; Forste & Heaton, 2004;Hobson, 2007; Watkins, 2006; Zagorsky, 2005). Therefore furtherresearch is warranted to explore the transition that women experiencethrough the divorce process and opportunities for growth.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

9:01

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

212 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to understand the challenges and growthopportunities of women who have divorced through the stories of theirlived experience. The research questions were the following:

1. How do women live, believe, and feel, during and after divorce?2. How do women meet challenges during the divorce?3. How do women grow emotionally and personally through the

divorce process?

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Mezirow’s (2000) theory of transformational learning is the organizingframework for this study. Mezirow believed people “transform” or aretransformed through learning experiences encountered in life. The trans-formation takes place through a series of phases. Phase 1, disorientation,was defined as being confronted with information and change. DuringPhase 2, the critical appraisal period, people begin to sort out informationand confide in friends. Phase 3, the transformational period, calls forreflection on the situation and examination of alternatives. Phase 4, bring-ing about new meaning to the perspective, allows the person to begin toexperience a new life phase. This framework is appropriate becausedivorce presents life-changing challenges and women must transitionthrough phases transforming grief into growth opportunities.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) guided the inductivemethods of this study that focused on the divorce experiences ofwomen. The researcher describes the experiences and processes of rolesocialization, support, and growth. The descriptive mode provided richdetail through interviews of the divorce experience (Burns & Groves,2005).

Ten White women who resided in the state of Indiana during the timeof the interviews volunteered to participate. Participants agreed to meetfor an interview one to two times, for 60 to 120 minutes. The researchertook great care to avoid structuring questions except for the purpose of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

9:01

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14


clarification, edification, or further explanation. A demographic question-naire was used to gather information about participants’ ages, education,income, age of dating, age at marriage, age at divorce, number of children,employment status, and religious affiliation. The procedures for protect-ing human participants were followed.

Following the interviews the researcher transcribed the audiotapesverbatim. Participants were provided the opportunity to review, correct,and amend the written transcripts. The data analysis was completedusing a method similar to Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) microanalysistechniques and procedures for grounded theory. This method requiredthe researcher to read the transcriptions line by line several times tobecome immersed in the data. Notes were made to identify specificwords or phrases that stood out to construct the initial categories that aretermed microanalysis. Specific themes were identified from the phrasesto construct initial categories based on the coding process. Validity wasaddressed in this study through checking the responses with the partici-pants and by creating an atmosphere of openness for the researcher andparticipants. Evidence was weighed with existing literature to validatefindings. Contrasts and comparisons were made based on feedbacksought from informants to validate findings as recommended by Milesand Huberman (1994).

Participants

The study was carried out over a 1-year period. Participants wereselected based on word snowball sample. The women were of the middleand upper middle classes socially and economically. Ages ranged from 48to 73 years with a mean of 60 years. The age when first married rangedfrom 18 to 59 years with a mean of 25 years. The length of the datingperiod for each couple ranged from 4 months to 5 years with an averageof about 3 years. The age when divorced ranged from 21 years to 66 yearswith a mean of 40 years. Three of the 10 participants did not have chil-dren. The number of children for the remaining seven couples rangedfrom two to four. All of the women had some college experience, and 5had earned college degrees. Four of the women had remarried. Onewoman was dating her former spouse at the time of the interview. Nine ofthe 10 participants identified with a religious affiliation. Six of the 10were currently employed. The average combined income when marriedranged from $33, 000 to over $100,000 annually. The women had similarprofiles (see Table 1).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

9:01

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

214

TA

BLE

1. P

artic

ipan

t pro

files

Par

ticip

ant

Dat

ing

His

tory

M

et T

hrou

ghF

amily

Div

orce

Fac

tors

Cha

lleng

esG

row

th

Kay

/ Bill

Hig

h sc

hool

No

child

ren

Her

dec

isio

n no

t to

have

ch

ildre

n; s

he m

oved

to

anot

her

stat

e

Em

otio

nal t

raum

a; g

uilt,

fear

; fe

elin

gs o

f fai

lure

lack

of

supp

ort

Exc

elle

d at

car

eer;

fin

ance

s; c

onfid

ence

; co

llege

; rem

arrie

dP

olly

/ Pet

eH

igh

scho

olC

hild

ren

Infid

elity

; alc

ohol

abu

se; l

ack

of h

is in

volv

emen

t with

ch

ildre

n

Em

otio

nal a

nd p

hysi

cal

inst

abili

ty; f

eelin

gs o

f fai

lure

; no

fam

ily s

uppo

rt; b

lam

ed

self

Em

ploy

men

t; fin

ance

s;

rela

tions

hip

with

ch

ildre

n; n

ew fr

iend

s

Car

la/T

omF

amily

4

mon

ths

Tw

o ch

ildre

nIn

fidel

ity b

y bo

th;

mas

turb

atio

nE

mot

iona

l ins

tabi

lity;

feel

ings

of

failu

reE

mpl

oym

ent;

finan

ces;

ne

w fr

iend

s; tr

avel

ed;

rem

arrie

dP

aige

/Bob

Frie

nds

Adu

lt ch

ildre

n fr

om fo

rmer

m

arria

ges

Con

flict

ove

r chi

ldre

n; c

ontr

ol

fact

ors;

em

otio

nal a

nd

verb

al a

buse

Em

otio

nal a

nd p

hysi

cal i

llnes

s;

feel

ings

of f

ailu

re; l

ack

of

supp

ort f

rom

chi

ldre

n

Em

ploy

men

t; fin

ance

s;

impr

oved

rel

atio

nshi

p w

ith c

hild

ren;

impr

oved

he

alth

Eve

/Gar

yH

igh

scho

olT

wo

sons

Infid

elity

; alc

ohol

; ver

bal

abus

eD

epre

ssio

n, g

uilt;

feel

ings

of

failu

re; f

inan

ces;

lack

of

supp

ort

Em

ploy

men

t; fin

ance

s;

conf

iden

ce; p

ride

Lilly

/Tim

Mut

ual f

riend

s 7

mon

ths

Tw

o da

ught

ers

Infid

elity

; alc

ohol

; his

in

diffe

renc

e to

chi

ldre

nD

epre

ssio

n, g

uilt;

sel

f-im

age;

fe

elin

gs o

f fai

lure

; lac

k of

su

ppor

t; fin

ance

s

Em

ploy

men

t; ce

rtifi

catio

n:

food

ser

vice

m

anag

emen

t; se

lf-Im

age;

sta

bilit

y

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

9:01

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

215

Sar

ah/S

teve

Wor

kT

wo

child

ren

Infid

elity

; bel

iefs

abo

ut

abor

tion;

bel

iefs

abo

ut

mar

riage

Chi

ldre

n; fe

ar; f

inan

ces;

fe

elin

gs o

f fai

lure

; ang

er; l

ack

of s

uppo

rt

Em

ploy

men

t; R

N d

egre

e;

over

cam

e an

ger

Jill/

Mar

kH

igh

scho

olT

een

preg

nanc

y;

forc

ed a

bor-

tion

by p

aren

ts

Mar

k’s

cont

rolli

ng n

atur

e;

abor

tion;

lack

of

com

mun

icat

ion

Ang

er; d

ealin

g w

ith a

bort

ion;

fe

elin

gs o

f fai

lure

; lac

k of

su

ppor

t

Em

ploy

men

t; re

turn

ed to

co

llege

; for

give

ness

; re

mar

riage

; ado

ptio

n of

th

ree

child

ren

Jean

/Aar

onB

lind

date

Thr

ee c

hild

ren

Aar

on’s

dec

reas

ed in

tere

st in

m

arria

geP

hysi

cal i

llnes

s; fe

ar, a

nger

; re

sent

men

t; fe

elin

gs o

f fa

ilure

; sel

f-es

teem

/imag

e;

lack

of s

uppo

rt

Em

ploy

men

t; ov

erca

me

ange

r; im

prov

ed h

ealth

; st

abili

ty; s

elf-

imag

e

May

/Dan

Dat

ed 2

yea

rsT

hree

chi

ldre

n,

prev

ious

m

arria

ge; o

ne

child

toge

ther

Infid

elity

; alc

ohol

abu

se;

Dan

’s in

diffe

renc

e to

ch

ildre

n

Ang

er; s

elf-

imag

e; fe

elin

gs o

f fa

ilure

; lac

k of

trus

t/sec

urity

Em

ploy

men

t; im

prov

ed

self-

imag

e; r

emar

ried

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

9:01

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14


FINDINGS

Eight categories emerged from the data: (a) dating reflections, (b) mar-ried life, (c) self-perceptions, (d) support or lack of support, (e) family,(f) personal emotions, (g) personal growth, and (h) the future. A descrip-tion of each category follows.

Dating Reflections

Many women experienced short or troublesome dating periods, andexpressed mistakes in judgment about the decision to marry. Zeng,Schultz, and Wang (1992) considered couples who married at an earlyage to be at risk for divorce. Huston and Houts (1998) provided evidencethat the personality traits of each partner are an important aspect of thepremarital relationship, not to be ignored or assumed to change.

Cases, Harford, Williams, and Hanna (1999), Pasley, Kerpelman andGuilbert (2001), and Lowenstein (2005) believed substance abuse wasone of many reasons that can lead a couple to divorce. This samefinding was supported in this study where alcohol abuse was a problemnot only during the dating period but also after the marriage. Reflectingon the dating period, the women idealized marriage within society(Casper & Haaga, 2005). Dating was prestigious, indicated someoneloved you, and was a transition to marriage. The desire to have thestatus of marriage was stronger than intuition about personal traits orquestionable habits. The women married despite problems identifiedduring the dating period.

Married Life

Women described their married life as having security, financial well-being, a nice home, a planned retirement, love, companionship, children,grandchildren, emotional support, and friends. These same perceptionswere supported by Friedan (1997), who described the image of marriedwomen as attending primarily to their husband, children, and home.Married life, however, failed to meet ideal expectations. Instead, lack ofsupport, emotional turmoil, alcohol abuse, infidelity, and traumaunfolded. In this study infidelity was a problem for 7 out of 10 marriages.Wiederman (1997) pointed out that infidelity was a detriment to manyrelationships. A failed marriage meant failure on many social levels andled to embarrassing stigmas expressed by 6 of the 10 women. The womenwere no longer part of the married social club. Consequently they felt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

9:01

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14


uncomfortable and were ostracized from previous relationships. Thestigma of being divorced still resonated with all of the women 20 yearslater.

When confronted with the possibility of separation, most of the womenwere hearing the news for the first time. They realized that they did nothave control of the marriage. The women who had been in long-termmarriages expressed that trust was lost. Coryell (2005) found that whentrust dies people feel betrayed. Feelings of sadness and anger surfaced.Confusion and disorientation emerged toward the end of the marriagewhen separation and divorce were becoming a reality, and the transitionperiod began. Mezirow (2000) identified Phase 1 of transformationallearning as disorientation, strongly expressed by the women in this study.

Self-Perceptions

Participants relayed how they felt about themselves through theprocess of divorce. During the marriages, most of the participants did notexperience high self-esteem, described in negative terms such as lackingintelligence and being a failure. Because most of the women’s identitieswere shaped through the marriage, facing a life without marriage seemedto strip the women of their identities. It was difficult for the women tovisualize themselves in roles other than wife and mother. Most womenbelieved they created many of the problems during the marriages. Sevenout of 10 women still had negative perceptions about themselves and thedivorce experience at the time of the interview.

Support or Lack of Support

The participants conceptualized support as emotional, physical, social,and financial. For most of the women, marriage had provided a constantsupport system thorough relationships with the spouse, family, andfriends. When the participants were faced with divorce the establishedsupport system disintegrated. All of the women experienced a loss offriends during this time. A common belief was that many long-termfriends were not willing to take sides or maintain a friendship. Many familyand friends failed to respond to the needs of the women, and even someclergy failed to support them. Some attorneys were not supportive.During this phase the women began to seek support from a few selectfriends. Support was mainly provided by other women who had eitherexperienced a divorce or were known to be nonjudgmental and sympa-thetic. Mezirow (2000) described Phase 2 of the transformation theory as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

9:01

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14


the critical appraisal period when individuals begin to seek support, asreflected in the experiences of these women.

During Phase 3, the transformational period (Mezirow, 2000), thewomen reestablished a support system. Social support was sought from avariety of other sources, including clergy, family, and coworkers. Golan(1981) believed the social network included extended family members,friends, and professional people such as counselors. Very few womensought the help of a counselor. One woman sought the help of a divorcerecovery group, but it was not a positive experience. Another woman reada variety of divorce recovery books. All of the women relied on a reli-gious faith. Broyles (2002) noted that religious practices are an importantfactor in adjustment. However, several women felt condemned by reli-gious organizations due to separation and divorce. Only one womanstated her pastor provided support. The need for a support system duringthe divorce process was affirmed in the literature (Amato & Keith, 1991;Caduri, 1994; Cohen & Liebenberg, 1994; Marks & McLanahan, 1993)and stressed the importance of a social network system during a crisis.

Family and Children

Participants with children believed children were a natural progressionof marriage. Some of the women expressed that children were a source ofconflict in the marriage, and part of the reason for the divorce. Howeverduring the divorce process, and after the divorce, the women believedchildren became their support and inspiration to live and to persevere.One couple who had been forced to have an abortion prior to marriagesuffered greatly from the experience and believed that it was the underly-ing reason for divorce. Three participants who did not have childrenfound it was easier to make the decision to separate and divorce. Hogue(2002) found that the transition to parenthood was often a road to crisisfor many fathers. This was true for many of the women in this study; theirspouses were disinterested in parenting.

Emotions

Many emotions were experienced throughout Phase 3, the transitionalperiod (Mezirow, 2000) when confronted with the news of a divorce,during the divorce process, and after the divorce was final. As a result oflosing support systems, physical and emotional problems developed,including headaches, depression, fear, and isolation. Emotions were iden-tified as feeling suppressed, vulnerable, and having a broken heart.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

9:01

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Cleberg and Danes (1999) affirmed that emotions resulting from divorcecould have an impact on the ability to make decisions, cause denial oftruth, create anger, and create physical problems. For some women emo-tions represented a release of tension and suppressed feelings. A fewwomen fought to reconcile their marriages, but most succumbed to real-ity, and had to deal with negative feelings. Nine out of 10 women statedrejection, betrayal, and devastation filled their souls. Overall, the womenwere overwhelmed with emotion that reflected reality. They repeatedlyverbalized positive reflections of their marriage, as if to search for areason to remain married.

Growth

After working through the first three transition phases, the womenbegan to focus on the future. Phase 4 of the transformation theory(Mezirow, 2000) was a period of growth, renewal, confidence building,establishing a new identity, and accepting reality. As time passed thewomen increased their self-esteem, and developed problem-solving skillsto make decisions. However, growth can only occur after letting go of thepast. This was particularly difficult for women with children, as childrenare almost always connected to the former spouse. Seven women did notrecognize that growth had taken place until the interview sessions encour-aged them to reflect on their experience.

As the women moved into Phase 4 of transformation, bringing aboutnew meaning (Mezirow, 2000), growth took place on many differentlevels. All of the women gained employment, made financial decisions,adjusted to social situations, and raised their children. Some bought andsold homes, returned to school, and learned to eat and travel alone.Feelings of well-being developed and physical, mental, and emotionalaliments were healed. There was increased acceptance of the past andrenewed hope for the future.

Future

Participants expressed concerns and thoughts about the future, theirrelationships with former spouses, and for some the relationship withtheir present spouses. Participants viewed the future with ambivalence,filled with both excitement and caution. The future meant beginning anew lifestyle and meeting challenges. However shadowed by uncertainty,the future was also viewed with fear, anxiety, regret, disappointment, andsadness. For all of the women, the future was at least partially determined

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

9:01

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14


by the past and perceptions of themselves and their life as it was andcould be. Although they had traversed through the stages of divorce, thefuture depended on letting go, developing self-confidence, and forgivingthemselves.

DISCUSSION

Eight major themes emerged from the intense interviews with divorcedwomen: dating reflections, married life, self-perceptions, support or lackof support, family, emotions, growth, and future. The results reflected thefindings of previous research on marriage and divorce. The findings alsocontributed new results on women’s issues related to marriage, divorce,and personal growth. Social support is a key factor in moving through thedivorce process and maintaining self-esteem. The core dimension ispersonal growth through social support.

The divorce process was different for all 10 women, yet there weremany similarities shared. Some women began marriage with naiveuninformed notions of dating and marriage based on the roles defined forwomen in the historical perspective. A lack of understanding and prepara-tion for marriage was evident. The women’s perceptions of marriage cen-tered on their spouses, children, homes, friends, financial security, and theidea of aging into retirement with one partner. When confronted by aspouse or with their own desire to end the marriage, the women were illprepared to assume responsibility for many adjustments and changes asidentified by Sakraida (2005). Many friends and some family membersdeserted the women. Many women believed they were the source of theproblem, experienced feelings of guilt, felt like a failure, becamedepressed, and developed physical aliments, such as headaches and eatingdisorders. Lacking support, the women turned emotions inward andexperienced a lack of self-esteem. Most turned to their faith for strength.All of the women who lost control over the decision to divorce stillbelieved marriage was preferable to divorce. This belief may have beendriven by the ideology of marriage and the perceptions the women hadabout gender roles. A few women still carried feelings of fear, resent-ment, and uncertainty about the future.

After reflecting on life experiences the women began to recognizegrowth in almost every area of life. Some women discovered the singlelifestyle was satisfying, fulfilling, fun, exciting, and challenging. Growthcame when the participants realized marriage was not about their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

9:01

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14


preconceived ideas of love, companionship, security, and retirement;marriage was about the relationship between spouses. All women gainedemployment and managed financial matters. The responsibility of a jobhad a positive impact on their self-esteem. New identities were formedand self-perceptions changed from being defeated to being a success. Asthe women moved through the phases of transformation (Mezirow, 2000)they gained confidence, self-esteem, and admiration from their childrenand others. As social support was reestablished, a new phase of life hadbegun. Personal confidence and self-esteem provided a sense of achieve-ment through personal growth.

Implications

The divorce experience is life-changing and involves a transitionthrough phases described by Mezirow (2000) as the transformationallearning theory. The four phases of the divorce experience parallel thefour phases of the transformational learning theory (Mezirow, 2000).Moving into Phase 1, women were confronted with the possibility ofdivorce and the prospect of life-changing circumstances. Feelings ofanger and resentment and many other emotions arise. Facing the anger,working through resentment, and letting go can be a long process. How-ever certain things can be done to reduce anger, such as exercising anddestroying mementos that are reminders of the conflict. It is advisable toseek out a close friend or family member with whom to talk. Phase 2 alsoinvolved sorting out information about finances, relationships, andresponsibilities. Seek social support from selected friends and examinealternatives. When social support dwindles due to a separation of friend-ships or relatives it is advisable to seek support from a close friend ormentor, preferably someone who has experienced the divorce process. Donot blame yourself. Talk about forgiving yourself. It is not all your fault.

During Phase 3, women established new relationships and made deci-sions about the future. As confidence began to build women made newfriends and attempted new activities to broaden the social support circle. It isadvisable for women to seek employment, as it widens the social and profes-sional circle and provides self-esteem. Have a makeover. Women regainedstrength, self-confidence, and a renewed hope for the future by findingmeaning in life in Phase 4, transformation. Consideration of enrollment incollege or seeking classes of personal interest is suggested to provide social-ization and develop creativity. Examine strengths and weaknesses. Targetstrengths. Set personal goals. Celebrate accomplishments.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

9:01

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14


CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study support the transformational learning theory(Merizrow, 2000) as a framework to examine the stages of divorce. Thedivorce experience for these women did provide an opportunity forpersonal growth. Viewing the divorce experience through the eyes ofthese women and the phases of adjustment can help and encourage otherwomen facing a divorce to resolve issues, decrease stress, assessstrengths, and move forward.

REFERENCES

Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and adult well-being: A meta-analysis.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 43–59.

Americans for Divorce Reform. (2007). Divorce statistics collection summary of findingsso far. Divorce Reform Page. Arlington, VA: Americans for Divorce Reform.

Armstrong, K. (2007). Good Morning America [Television broadcast, January 4, 2007].New York: ABC.

Benussi, D. (2006). Beware the devastation of divorce. Farmers Weekly, 145(19), 23.Bevvino, D., & Sharkin, B. (2003). Divorce adjustment as a function of finding meaning

and gender differences. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 39(3/4), 81–97.Broyles, J. (2002). An examination of religiosity and attitudes towards divorce. Knoxville,

TN: Southern Sociological.Burns, N., & Groves, S. K. (2005). The practice of nursing research, conduct, critique and

utilization (5th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.Caduri, A. (1994). Single parent families: Family in transition or an alternative life-style?

Unpublished master’s thesis, Haifa University, Haifa, Israel.Cases, M. F., Harford, T. C., Williams, G. D., & Hanna, E. Z. (1999). Alcohol consump-

tion and divorce rates in the United States. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, 647–652.Casper, L. M., & Haaga, J. (2005). Unit 1: Foundations of family health care nursing.

Family and health demographies. In S. M. Harmon Hanson, V. Gedaly-Duff, &J. Rowe Kaakinen, Family health care nursing: Theory, practice & research (pp. 39–68).Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.

Cleberg, K., & Danes, S. (1999). Grief and crisis decisions. University of MinnesotaExtension Service, Department of Family Social Sciences.

Cohen, A., & Liebenberg, M. (1994). Divorce and society—Who needs help? Supportsystems for the divorced father and mother who raise children alone. Social Security,41, 57–72.

Coryell, D. M. (2005). Learning to trust again. Divorce Magazine. Retrieved June 16, 2006from http://lifewise.canoe.ca/SexRomance/2005/02/27/pf-944451.htm

Denham, S. (2005). Unit 1: Foundations of family health care nursing. Familystructure, function, and process. In S. M. Harmon Hanson, V. Gedaly-Duff, &

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

9:01

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14


J. Rowe Kaakinen, Family health care nursing: Theory, practice & research(pp. 119–156). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.

Forste, R., & Heaton, T. (2004). The divorce generation: Well-being, family attitudes, and socio-economic consequences of martial disruption. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 41, 95–114.

Friedan, B. (1997). The feminine mystique. New York: Norton.Gebbie, K., & Gebbie, E. (2005). Unit 1: Foundations of family health care nursing.

Families, nursing, & social policy. In S. M. Harmon Hanson, V. Gedaly-Duff, &J. Rowe Kaakinen, Family health care nursing: Theory, practice & research (pp.157–196). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualita-tive research. Chicago: Aldine De Gruyter.

Golan, N. (1981). Passing through transitions. New York: Free Press.Hardesty, J. L., & Ganong, L. H. (2006). How women make custody decisions and

manage co-parenting with abusive former husbands. Journal of Social & PersonalRelationships, 23, 543–563.

Hobson, M. (2007). What women need to know about divorce and their finances. GoodMorning America [Television broadcast, January 16, 2007]. New York: ABC.

Hogue, H. (2002). Women’s stories of divorce at childbirth: When the baby rocks thecradle. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Clinical Practice Press.

Huston, T. L., & Houts, R. M. (1998). The psychological infrastructure of courtship andmarriage: The role of personality and compatibility in romantic relationships. InT. N. Bradbury (Ed.), The developmental course of marital dysfunction (pp. 114–151).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kurdek, L. A., & Kennedy, C. (2001). Differences between couples who end their marriageby fault or no-fault legal procedures. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(2), 241–253.

Lowenstein, L. F. (2005). Causes and associated features of divorce as seen by recentresearch. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 42, 153–171.

Marks, N., & McLanahan, S. (1993). Gender, family structure, and social support amongparents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55, 481–493.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspective on a theory inprogress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of newmaterial. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Montenegro, X., & Fisher, L. (2004). The divorce experience: A study of divorce atmidlife and beyond. (Executive summary conducted for AARP.) AARP: The Magazine,pp. 1–D38. Washington, DC: AARP.

Pasley, K., Kerpelman, J., & Guilbert, D. E. (2001). Gendered conflict, identity disruption,and marital instability expanding Gottman’s model. Journal of Social & PersonalRelationships, 18(1), 5–27.

Robboy, A. (2002). Aftermarriage: The myth of divorce, unspoken marriage agreementsand their impact on divorce. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha.

Rokach, R., Cohen, O., & Dreman, S. (2004). Who pulls the trigger? Who initiates divorceamong over 45-year-olds? Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 42,(1/2), 61–83.

Sakraida, T. J. (2005). Divorce transition differences of midlife women. Issues in MentalHealth Nursing, 26, 225–249.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

9:01

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and proce-dures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sweeney, M. M., & Horwitz, A. V. (2001). Infidelity, initiation, and the emotional climateof divorce: Are there implications for mental health? Journal of Health and SocialBehavior, 42, 295–309.

Watkins, M. (2006). Divorce. Georgetown Journal of Gender & the Law, 7, 1033–1041.Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national

survey. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 167–174.Zagorsky, J. L. (2005). Marriage and divorce’s impact on wealth. Journal of Sociology,

41, 406–424.Zeng, Y., Schultz, T. O., & Wang, D. (1992). An event history analysis of divorce in China

(Discussion Paper 675, 34) New Haven, CT: Yale Economic Growth Center.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

tah]

at 0

9:01

27

Nov

embe

r 20

14

women's perception of the divorce experience: a qualitative study

Documents