llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllljlll

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
Facilitating Adjustment to Divorce
Through Time-Limited, Individual,

Self—Concept Based Psychotherapy

presented by

J. Keith Ostien

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D , degree in Counseling,
Personnel Services and
Educational Psychology

    

Major px’ fessor

Date June 18, 1979

 

0-7 639

OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY
PER lTEM

Return to book drop to remove
this checkout from your record.

 

DEC a.) --< eat
38 (3.

qrg‘la'rm
if as

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.__._.- _

 

 

r——* 7” H
‘ I... .. .p—rv— a.
na-

 

@C0pyright by
J. KEITH OSTIEN

1979

 

 

FACILITATING ADJUSTMENT TO DIVORCE THROUGH
TIME-LIMITED, INDIVIDUAL, SELF-CONCEPT

BASED PSYCHOTHERAPY

BY

J. Keith Ostien

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Personnel Services
and Educational Psychology

 

1979

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

FACILITATING ADJUSTMENT TO DIVORCE THROUGH
TIME-LIMITED, INDIVIDUAL, SELF-CONCEPT
BASED PSYCHOTHERAPY

BY

J. Keith Ostien

The purposes of this study were to examine the
effects of time-limited, individual, self—concept based
psychotherapy on the adjustment processes of divorcing
individuals, and to explore the relationships among those
aspects of the self—concept previously identified by re-
searchers and authors as being significantly affected by
the divorce experience. These aSpects of the self-concept
were self-esteem, self as a social being, self as having
meaning and purpose in life, self as accepting of others,
and self as manifested in life roles. The effects of treat—
nent and the relationships among these aspects of the self-
concept were observed in the larger contexts of level of
anxiety, overall adjustment to divorce, and general person-
ality adjustment.

The study was conducted in the field setting
ludlizing a pretest-posttest control group design, with

random assignment of subjects to the experimental and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J. Keith Ostien

control groups. Forty-two subjects were involved in the
study, with 21 in each group. Subjects were divorcing
persons in Ingham County, Michigan who were desirous of and
voluntarily sought counseling to assist them in their
adjustments to divorce.

The results of the study revealed that time—limited,
individual, self—concept based psychotherapy improved parti-
cular aspects of the self—concept. The therapy experience
led to the improvement of self-esteem, the reduction of
social avoidance and distress, and an improvement in assess—
ment of some life roles. The time-limited therapy also was
shown to reduce anxiety and, perhaps most important of all
the results, it was demonstrated that time—limited therapy
significantly improved the overall adjustment processes of
divorcing persons. By contrast, the hypotheses that time—
limited therapy would improve acceptance of others and
general personality adjustment were not supported.

The results revealed that divorcing persons not
involved in the time—limited therapeutic experience tended
to develop increasingly negative self-perceptions over time.
It also was seen that those aspects of the adjustment pro—
cess related to self in a social/interpersonal context
seemed to be built on divorcing persons figs; having regained
a sense of direction and meaning for their lives, and having
begun to define themselves as single, separate individuals.

These results provided the basis for the conclusion that

 

 

J. Keith Ostien

adjustment to the divorce experience was a progressive,
sequential process built upon revitalized self-functioning.
The analysis of data established that the aSpects
of the self—concept, with the exception of self as accepting
of others, correlated in the predicted directions. The
predicted correlations among measures of anxiety, overall
adjustment to divorce, and the measured aspects of the self—
concept also were supported. It was observed that divorcing
persons seemed to turn most frequently to friends and family
for support and assistance, and that divorcing persons
turned to their former spouses for support and assistance
less as they adjusted to the divorce experience.
Implications drawn from the results of the present
study were: (a) further research needs to be conducted
investigating the progressive, sequential model of the
divorce adjustment process advanced in this study; (b) vary—
ing therapeutic approaches, using varying theoretical frame—
works need to be observed and compared to determine the most
appropriate treatment interventions for facilitating adjust—
ment to divorce; (c) the Adjustment to Divorce Scale demon—
strated preliminary merit as a measure of overall adjustment
to divorce. Further research now needs to be conducted

regarding the reliability and validity of this instrument.

 

 

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my parents, Bruce and
Jean Ostien, who have given their love and support un-
tiringly to me, and all of their children; and to my wife,
Helen Ostien, who has so lovingly shared with me the peaks

and valleys of our life together.

 

 

 

 

h.—

u
5“

n..

‘.

‘M

u
H-

D.‘

P.
\.

III

I v
(l)

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A project of this length and size necessarily is
dependent on the contributions of many people. First and
foremost I would like to thank my committee chairman, Dr.
James Engelkes, and my dissertation committee, Dr. Herb
Burks, Dr. John Hurley, Dr. Richard Johnson, and Dr. Eileen
Thompson. Their guidance, suggestions, and cricitisms
always proved to be beneficial.

Dr. Ed Gibeau and Mr. Bill Griz served as the
clinicians in this study, and their reliability, expertise,
honesty, and friendship will never be forgotten.

Dr. John Osborne provided considerable assistance
in identifying and validating the references found in the
review of the literature.

Mr. James Pocock, Director, Friend of the Court,
provided invaluable assistance and support throughout the
entire life of this project. He dealt with practical and
political problems, investigated certain legalities, and
supported the project before the Circuit Court Judges. This
research project simply would not have taken place without

his involvement. Additionally, Ms. Neusbaum and Ms. Reed

iv

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

were very instrumental in keeping the project moving by
their steady distribution of the brochures through Friend

of the Court offices.

Ms. Carole Charon of Legal Aid, Ms. Robin Bohnert
of the Domestic Assault Program through the Department of
Social Services, Ms. Laing of the Women's Resource Center,
and Mr. Barry Sterns of Lansing Community College all pro—
vided important help by coordinating the distribution of
brochures through their respective offices.

A considerable amount of data was generated in the
course of this project, and coding and preparing the raw
data for entry into the computer was a monumental task.
This task was made manageable, and almost pleasant, by the
very generous involvement of a number of people. Mr. and
Mrs. James Fox, Dr. and Mrs. David Roth, Dr. and Mrs. Ray
Husband, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Pavona, Dr. Judith Taylor, Mr.
Frank Jenkins, and Mrs. Helen Ostien worked diligently and
accurately for long hours in preparing the data. I am most
grateful for their help and friendship.

A major part of this project was the typing of the
text. Ms. Lynn Shuster worked closely with me for many
months in preparing the early drafts. Mrs. Fayann Lippincott
tYPed the final copy of the dissertation. The assistance
Provided by Ms. Shuster and Mrs. Lippincott was consistently

Of a high quality, and made many potential problems easily

resolvable.

L

 

 

Dr. Judith Taylor provided much assistance in the
analysis and interpretation of data. I am deeply grateful
for her enthusiasm, expertise, support, and friendship
throughout the project.

A special and heartfelt thanks must be given to
Dr. Eileen Thompson. In addition to serving on my disserta—
tion committee, she invested herself in this project to a
remarkable extent. Her expertise in self—concept theory
and measurement repeatedly improved portions of the text.
Additionally, her expertise in statistical procedures and
use of the computer were remarkable, and played a major role
in the completion of this project. Most important, however,
and for which I am most grateful, was Dr. Thompson's interest,

Support, and friendship throughout the course of this pro-

ject.

vi

LIST OF
LIST OF
CHAPTER

I.

II.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . .
THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . .
Research Hypotheses . . . . . . . . .
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research-Based Literature . . . . . .
Nonresearch Publications . . . . . . .
Summary of Divorce—Related Literature

Review of Self—Concept Theory . . . .
Time—Limited, Individual Psychotherapy

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . .

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Instruments . . . . . . . . . . .

Self—Esteem Scale . . . . . .
Social Avoidance and Distress

Scale . . . . . . . . . . .
Acceptance of Others . . .
Existential Anxiety Scale . .

Page

xiii

 

 

CHAPTER Page
Semantic Differential . . . . . . . . 60
Anxiety Checklist . . . . . . . . 62
Social Desirability Scale . . . . . . 63
l6PF.... .........63
Adjustment to Divorce Scale . . . . . 67
Procedures . . . . . . . . . 68
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Procuring Subjects . . . . . . . . . . 70
Issues Regarding Research in a Clinical
Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Brochure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Clinicians . . . . . . . . . . 78
Initial Contacts with Subjects . . . . . . 8l
Pretest and Random Assignment of Subjects
to Clinician and Group . . . . . . . . . 82
Therapeutic Process . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Posttesting of Subjects . . . . . . . . . 86
Termination of Therapy . . . . . . . . . . 87
Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Design Over Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Experimental Treatment . . . . . . . . . . 90
Validity Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Design Over Measures . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Research Hypotheses Stated in Testable Form . 94
Methods of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Tests of Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . 97
Ancillary Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . 99
Missing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Results of the Tests of the Hypotheses. . . . 104
Results of the Ancillary Analysis of Data . . 135
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

V. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION . . . 176

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l76
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Implications for Future Research . . . . . . . 189
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

viii

 

CHAPTER
APPENDICES
Appendix
A. Face Sheet for the Pretest Packet . . .
B. Rosenberg‘s Self-Esteem Scale . . . . . . . . .
C. Watson and Friend's Social Avoidance and
Distress Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Fey's Acceptance of Others. . . . . . . .
E. Good and Good's Existential Anxiety Scale
F. Semantic Differential . . . . . . . . .
t G. Zuckerman's Anxiety Checklist . . . . .
l
‘ H. Crowns and Marlowe's Social Desirability Scale.
I. Cattell's l6PF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
J. Adjustment to Divorce Scale . . . . . . . .
K. "New Directions" Brochure . . . . . . . . . . .
L. Judge Warren's Specifications of Friend of the
Court's Involvement in the Study. . . . . .
M. Resumés of Clinicians . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N. Summary of ANOVAs for Test of Hypothesis 5,
F— —Values, Associated Probabilities, and Group
Means for Each Role Category Contained in the
Semantic Differential . . . . . . . . . . .
0. Summary of ANOVAs for Test of Hypothesis 6,
F—Values, Associated Probabilities, and Group
Means for the Sixteen Factors of the l6PF .
P. Weights and Constants Applied to Primary Factor
Sten Scores to Obtain Second—Stratum Factor
Scores of the l6PF. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9- Summary of the Clinicians' Reviews Regarding
the Experimental Group Subjects' Progress in
Therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ix

 

Page

195

196

198
200
203
206
224
225
228
237

241

242

244

254

278

279

281

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table - Page
3.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample . . . 50

4.1 Summary of ANOVA for Test of Hypothesis 1
Using Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale as a
Measure of Treatment Effect on Self—Esteem. . 106

4.2 Summary of ANOVA for Test of Hypothesis 2
Using Watson and Friend's Social Avoidance
and Distress Scale as a Measure of Treatment
Effect on Self as a Social Being. . . . . . . 107

4.3 Summary of ANOVA for Test of Hypothesis 3
Using Fey's Acceptance of Others Scale as a
Measure of Treatment Effect on Self as
Accepting of Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

 

4.4 Summary of ANOVA for Test of Hypothesis 4
Using Good and Good's Existential Anxiety
Scale as a Measure of Treatment Effect on
Self as Having Hope and Purpose in Life . . . 111

4-5 Summary of ANOVA Interactions for Test of
Hypothesis 5 Using the Semantic Differential
as a Measure of Treatment Effect on Assessment
of Self in Life Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

4.6 Summary of ANOVA Interactions for Test of
Hypothesis 6 Using Cattell's l6PF as a
Measure of Treatment Effect on General
Personality Adjustment. . . . . . . . . . . . 117

4-7 Summary of ANOVA for Test of Hypothesis 7
Using the Adjustment to Divorce Scale as a
Measure of Treatment Effect on Overall
Adjustment to Divorce . . . . . . . . . . . . ll9

4-8 Summary of ANOVA for Test of Hypothesis 8
Using Zuckerman's Anxiety Checklist as a
Measure of Treatment Effect on Level of
Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lZl

 

_: . C .:
5 . .. a.
. . L. a. .:
“I v . .n
... ale U. . s
w. . . .: .1?
.n. V. 2— .x-
:. .2 a.
_ N” w” .1
P\v
L” .a. . . . .
rt I . . ‘ -
.L /.. L” v...

 

..._
...\: SQ:
lea
» 5.535.

s
a

u

 

 

Table

 

Page

Summary of ANOVA for Analysis of Crowne and
Marlowe‘ 5 Social Desirability Scale as a
Measure of Social Approval Seeking
Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Pearson Product-Moment Correlations among
Measures of Social Desirability, Acceptance
of Others, Self—Esteem, Existential Anxiety,
Social Avoidance and Distress, Anxiety, and
Overall Adjustment to Divorce . . . . . . . 124

Pearson Product-Moment Correlations of
Measures of Aspects of the Self-Concept,
Anxiety, and Overall Adjustment to Divorce
with a Measure of General Personality
Adjustment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Pearson Product-Moment Correlations of
Measures of Aspects of the Self-Concept,
Anxiety, and Overall Adjustment to Divorce
With a Measure of Perceptions of Self in
Life Roles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Pearson Product- -Moment Intercorrelations
of the l6PF . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Pearson Product-Moment Correlations between a
Measure of General Personality Adjustment
and a Measure of Perceptions of Self in
Life Roles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Pearson Product—Moment Intercorrelations
of the Semantic Differential. . . . . . . . 129

Pearson Product—Moment Correlations among
Demographic Variables and the Dependent
Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Summary of the t—test Procedure with the
Demographic variable, "Person Desiring the
Divorce". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Summary of ANOVA for Test of Acceptability to
Others Scale as a Measure of Treatment
Effect on Perceptions of Self as Acceptable
to Others . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

xi

 

  
 

 

. A . . ‘.. . .. . . . . . J. . L a”
.. .. . . t. . L. .H .. C. v. a. a. ..
v. ._ .2 t. : . . . ... .: E ... . . T. .v.
.y. 2. m. . . L. .~ .. .. .2 A» L. 2. r:

.. ..~ r. .2 .. .. v. z. .. .4.

1.3....— . [7... T... v. .. :1. .2 v.
.. L. :_ .. .3 n. .. w. .2 P. . . .. . . t
.2 . v v. v. .3 .._ .2 .f .7 .2 .2 .s.

r. .. .. .3 .J .. ... .M Y" ._.. .2 .. nu .2 l.
.3 v.” :e ”A V. .g .. ‘~ T. .f :. 2.. sf w... ..

.: . . :m
ud. -\.- AK. \i.
..:. .. .. .. . .

I... 1.. .n 1..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table Page

4.19 Pearson Product-Moment Correlations of
Acceptability to Others Scale and Second-
Stratum 16PF Factors with Demographic
Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

4.20 Pearson Product—Moment Correlations of
Acceptability to Others Scale and Second—
Stratum 16PF Factors with Dependent
Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

4.21 Summary of ANOVAs for Second—Stratum Factors
of the 16PF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

4.22 Summary of t—test Procedure for Comparing
Experimental and Control Group Subjects'
Reports of Availability and Use of
Resources for Support and Assistance Both
at the Pretest and Posttest . . . . . . . . 164

4.23 Summary of t-test Procedure for Comparing
Pretest/Posttest Differences in Experimental
Group Subjects on Their Reports of Resources
Available and Used for Support and
Assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . 166

 

4.24 Rank Ordering of Resources Available and
Resources Used at Pretest and Postest for
Both the Experimental and Control Group
Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

4.25 Pearson Product—Moment Correlations among
Demographic Variables and Resources Available
and Resources Used for Support and
Assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

3.1. Design over Measures

xiii

Page

93

 

 

 

 

 

‘~— ‘: -
7 “‘*~ -- ..

:...: H; _:‘_ ..
... t-.-. __ _
~- ‘ — "‘"-v-; ~
».. -_ . _‘¥ ..
“ M ' --‘..,.
-. .y ..:...:‘

.._ n- ‘: .. ‘{
-.., _' _‘ .
. t-w. - '.~ -
H-.. w... ~

 

.,
"‘- : .r“ ‘
«\u-gv-.' “5:2‘3
of”. ‘ ~~‘
~<‘\4( “ ‘V ‘
" an
inn.
“argue r
7 :‘A ‘na
“‘~tf -..,:
L5: .0, ,
. a.
1‘“ t7“ «1.. .
. _ ”t '
3:“.
‘u u. A
n. .48 World. ;
33M.
‘ Ms .fl- .
. ...gn “dew
..\
{\A
"final, . ‘
" J" «
uEu t-lat bec
"Ins

 

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

Divorce is a personal and social occurrence of major
proportions in the United States. It is estimated that
since the early 19705 over 40% of all new marriages are
ending in divorce (Bronfenbrenner, 1975; Eisler, 1977;
Fisher, 1976; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1977; Levinger,
1976; Weiss, 1975). In Ingham County, Michigan, where the
present study took place, almost six divorces for every 10
marriages occurred for each of the years 1976, 1977, 1978
(Ingham County Clerk's Office, Mason, Michigan—-persona1
Communication, January 18, 1979).

Glick (1973) observed that between 1960 and 1971
the divorce rate increased by more than 70%. Glick (1973)
also noted that the United States had the highest divorce
rate in the world. Weiss (1975) examined possible reasons
for the high incidence of divorce in America, and in doing
50 Concluded that because those causal factors were likely
to remain a part of American society, the high incidence
0f divorce also was likely to remain. Other researchers and

authors have concurred with this observation (Eisler, 19777

g

 

_.~

 

a
.0“, r."": .-
4 'I Obi-fie--
‘..-lpv ' " . '0’
0 ~ -.' -4
...uv
' a
..n- ‘3...
‘0 | ~-
’ nun-A0. ‘ _ ' ..
V-~ -1 u .
:o:-V"'"
I C
.’ ;.. an "
”T -ooh
no --’.
o-ov " ,
u-.
a- ‘
‘3 " u,....
-- ..-~
- I
.A—- .4
‘hlh'-:¢- -:.'\ 3- u
-‘u.
“innovn... :5.
.
,, I
' co. 4".
I-U‘Q"- a... Q-‘.‘ "I:
_ .u- -
‘.l§-.b 5.. -o
. - .
“"0 . ac-...-o~:.-O
:‘~.. : :-~..---su-ob I
.
o -
. U
I“':va: ' :«ao-sv ~<
‘.'.-.~‘s : u..~.'»- ' ‘.
...; I.“ '.~V‘-~-Kn
" ‘ on u.
I- y' H“;.~--..‘-.~o«'
. .- .
V. I
O .‘-‘ :v v ‘ “:.—
.‘~-"‘~' ' -4 . . us.
.
'5‘! “ . -g-
§
.' ‘. H..':: it ~
I ‘ “~§! -- .
... .
‘.“- : ”at‘ "v-oa-n
'hu .-
u.... u-- ._. “.‘- . ¥
. ‘ -
n .‘0: :“aN-o “A ‘;
.
. o‘.5 5“» \ ‘
- ““-~ ~. ~
“v. ,
\ \Q ..
‘.‘:‘\ :V‘Q“ ‘V‘ 0-...—
ss ‘m‘.»‘. -n. .. n.
. o
.
s
\
‘fl
““1...“ nv«~,.-_: .‘h‘
b
gyu‘“_.‘ .‘..‘
n. _
‘V\0.~ ‘.. .
‘~~.H\‘ ‘5‘: «A..“‘
. ~ s..\ L“.'5
'~
'9 D‘\ g
'- 0‘ .
~5\¥‘ " A. ‘hq
‘ \- y. ‘~.\“4
‘
‘ bI" A. 5“.
s
§
u
‘»:~\‘\ " ‘.‘ .
.‘Hu 5‘ ‘Hcsy "‘7‘.
y .
on» ‘ ~~.
-
‘1‘"
|“‘ ‘
Mg -
"“6 -cr«
6. N
- l..\" a?“ f‘
a- y
1"
‘
\...5.rl\..“
V‘ '
-' ”HM I ~v.‘., r'
9 IV..-6 ..
~
"NQEE‘.
‘W | H
‘s..c “Yaqr m
' V‘vu a 0-
‘ _‘ v-u ~

 

 

 

Fisher, 1976; Kessler, 1975; Krantzler, 1974; Morris &
Prescott, 1975; Napolitane & Pellegino, 1977).

The high incidence of divorce in and of itself,
however, is not what makes it such a widely discussed and
important personal and social issue. It is the impact of
divorce on individuals, families, and society that makes it
such a significant issue in human experience (Bohannan, 1970;
Edwards & Hoover, 1974; Epstein, 1974; Fisher, 1974; Gordon,
1976; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1977; Kessler, 1975;
Krantzler, 1974; Napolitane & Pellegino, 1977; Singleton,
1974; Weiss, 1975). Weiss (1976) noted that marital dis—
ruption almost universally gave rise to stress. Depending
on the specifics of the individual and the situation, this
stress varied in type and intensity. The myriad divorce—
related programs which have been developed in communities
throughout the country provide additional evidence of the
severity of the impact of divorce, and persons' desires to
respond to their personal traumas. In Ingham County,
Michigan there are classes through the Community College,
men's groups, women's groups, Parents Without Partners, a
Counseling program through the Prosecutor's Office, church
programs, and professional services throughout the psycho-
lOgical community. These programs exist and are well
attended because many divorcing peOple feel that they need
suPPOrt and assistance in coping with their divorce.

Barringer (1974) found in a questionnaire sent out to

 

 

 

 

'.n—‘ .

 

 

'\ ‘ ‘ a ‘
—_:_5. “a: ..: u ‘
..:.:_ ._‘_ .. .
“N'” -7 " ~:-~.-».
‘. --_‘..u..
‘ " TA. -‘
-_ ..
" "~-:.

9...“ A;
.".. ~ "RD-II- . A
“ \wt: ‘. ,.

-.“.‘~

I"~ :.
\._ “A,“
. h "\v~ ,
....t 5““:
.‘I “Au
-..' 5"“ .. ~.-
...c....5 ., -w.

 

‘._~ev w ~
" ‘9/3; 68‘“,
End
“Ln 2. _
“1‘373; N'acu
3
my .
I pal-(ev- 19‘ \
I p
,
"‘h
he tram 1
3512: t
s A r
v De manices‘
‘ l
is.
“Cts c .
O. the 591‘.
~l:n

04

 

 

 

members of Parents Without Partners that a large majority

of those people sought some type of assistance. Others have
observed this same readiness and need on the part of divorc—
ing people to seek some type of assistance in their adjust-
ment to divorce (Edwards & Hoover, 1974; Fisher, 1974;
Krantzler, 1974).

Much of the divorce-related research that has been
completed has sought to identify the characteristics of the
impact of divorce on people. Many of these studies have
implied or explicitly stated that the central point of
impact was the individual's self—concept (Barringer, 1974;
Fisher, 1976; Hackney, 1975; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1977;
Raschke, 1975; Weiss, 1975). In addition, the more sub—
jective observations made by many authors of books written
about divorce support this conclusion very strongly (Baguedor,
1972; Bohannan, 1970; Colgrove, Bloomfield, & McWilliams,
1976; Edwards & Hoover, 1974; Eisler, 1977; Frohlich, 1971;
Fuller, 1973; Gettlemen & Markowitz, 1974; Hunt, 1966;
Kessler, 1975; Krantzler, 1974; Napolitane & Pellegino,
1977; Parker, 1973; Singleton, 1974).

The trauma to the self—concept caused by divorce
seems to be manifested by various feelings and in various
aspects of the self—concept. The studies cited above have
suggested that the aspects of the self—concept most affected
by the experience of divorce were self—esteem, self as

accepting of others, self as having meaning and purpose in

 

 

 

. .: -~ ‘ ”P"
. :2 :3 : =—"
.n-v "--
- ‘: "
v. "‘ VP =~ -
‘--_h,----- c-
I “A -o"
.u’ I ‘-- H
- 1 ‘ ’
u-.-I:: .......
n" ...-; -- :-‘.-.‘-
r;: -w:' “ ‘I .‘
..-~ -..—- .--..-
‘N‘ '_ _. , —
“0' ‘_~‘-.« --_~.-
-;‘ _“__1“-
— \M ‘
..... V-_i- _

-' -u‘
I-n- ' : :‘h: -
.-- ‘ .u- .

..... v--n~-‘: :)-:

":' __-.-- -- .
.0..- .1.--~" ‘. P

_.y. -;: ‘7‘ A: ~

~.... ..»-- ': ~‘ 5:
‘~ 1 _‘ .- ‘ '

_- -- he: ‘N.
v .n»““l“

a ..
1 t: ‘ “a

-.--

« \ I.
‘-w-tu~

u ‘

~ \. .

“‘: A“... H"

“Dub. -- K
A \L.

.senablishec‘ a cc

e~+' ., .
LEDIISHEC a sta"

uVe ObservatiO'iS
Edv
wards 5 Hoover
I
,.
duolltane & Fell
Observati

re
searchers and a

th
9 length of tin“

 

 

 

life, self as a social being, and self as manifested in the
various roles of individual lives. The feelings most fre-
quently associated with the trauma of the divorce experience
were those of anxiety, apprehensiveness, fear, panic, sad—
ness, regret, depression, loneliness, and hostility.

The observations of many researchers and authors
regarding the eventual, healthy adjustments made by peOple
to the divorce experience supported the conclusion that the
primary impact of divorce was on an individual‘s perceptions
and feelings of self. Hetherington, Cox, and Cox (1977)
noted that healthy adjustment occurred when positive changes
in the self—concept took place. They noted that, for the
group of people they observed, "the most important factor
in changing the self—concept two years after divorce was
the establishment of a satisfying, intimate, heterosexual
relationship" (p. 18). Weiss (1975) stated that two devel—
Opments seemed to signal a healthy adjustment to separation
and divorce. These developments were that the individual
reestablished a coherent and stable identity, and he/she
established a stable life pattern. Other authors' subjec—
tive observations supported this View (Bohannan, 1970;
Edwards & Hoover, 1974; Kessler, 1975; Krantzler, 1974;
Napolitane & Pellegino, 1977; Singleton, 1974).

Observations also have been made by many of the
researchers and authors in the area of divorce regarding

the length of time required for adjustment to the divorce

 

 

 

 

 

-v we: ”3:, ..
it”: .....
-..-_.
-.._
'._ ,....';v P.
..... -_~ —- _ -
.l- ..
w -. y 3
'55.-" .. -.- . _
-- n-n-—p-.;— u-
:_..-::-... .
.'- :: *c- ';-_
...: I .........
5"“":"‘.: yc‘::
“cu-..” .l____
":‘D‘ .4 u ,3: -
‘7‘ ;-~ ~--..-__:__-
w“... .. -s- - _
71"": -,~_‘- - -,
..| ..I ~~~_“ fiy‘
\-- :--:-- - _
t - ~ 7" ‘A.
“"‘A a”.-- __,
“2 - H... ex __
W ‘-|.-.,., C.‘._'
‘-~...-_‘ .-
~~ )— h
Vb:-~~ ..
‘“ "‘- —a,.
"‘ s T .- " ~v~~..,.
~-- _
I": L~DC1

 

 

experience. The considerable amount of time required for
adjustment, as observed by these researchers and authors,
provides further evidence of the severity of the divorce
experience for many peOple. Hetherington, Cox, and Cox
(1977) suggested that, for many people, a minimum of two
years was required for successful adjustment to the divorce
experience; Weiss (1975) estimated two to four years.
Fisher (1976) estimated a minimum of two to four years to
complete adjustment to the divorce experience, although a
very few peOple were adjusted within a year. Napolitane
and Pellegino (1977) concluded that final adjustment did
not occur until four to seven years following the beginning
cf the divorce experience.

Despite the high incidence of divorce in America,
and the many observations regarding both the degree of and
types of impact divorce has on many peOple, very few research
efforts have been completed which were designed to examine
the impact of a treatment intervention on individuals'
adjustments to divorce. Fisher's (1976) study was the only
study identified in the review of literature which sought
to examine the effects of a specific therapeutic model on
individuals' adjustments to divorce. He developed the
Divorce Adjustment Seminar. This seminar brought divorcing
PGOple together in a group in which they were involved in a
Variety of experiences designed to facilitate their adjust-

Hents to divorce. Fisher (1976) found that peOple involved

 

 

 

 

“.oonyna
"’ I or- ..
in U-
.— u.-.-

. .

--o'--r-c-o-- ob:o-

n s u- “ .

“ ‘U—OVII- bi. I
u

’ .-
ooov~oon~ . o
— Ir a- .-
m-w-v--vvo - an

.

I"

 

“.1...

I)
(ll

5..-..u

’9
"Qv-
“

(ll

..
o...
Us
'\~-~
.

.
”D A-
a
v‘uu .5 was“.

“tb- '
-':‘ l‘: :"‘"h Q
“~‘~ 5“ ‘
'- u

(I)

" ..
~‘K'buu.' ‘
- ~‘
.
_o... .
l . u-V -.“‘V-....
-"' b..:~‘o-
5»-
9
~ VA... ‘.'
. o. ._
‘ “'¢~m
~-,
\ ‘o.
h‘: 3‘:¢‘~ ‘;_
s
. ._.-~ 9;...
--~-
‘ I
- Q
" In
*3. u
s “Q
“--~. \ ‘~
'O-ng“ A
u

's. n"‘,‘_‘~
.

\n a
“‘V--a
‘A
a"
y u. ‘t.
‘ 50‘s- “““ '
h...‘ h. Q'u‘
‘0‘ ‘. ... s
‘y
.
o ‘-
‘u
. u: .
-. r-
““ :S:E"**
. w: c

:4...
‘k r

m

' -- “6

“a

s

p

0 L
“‘59.. « . .

a.“ h“ ‘
«Ln

 

can

[It

9

(I)

I"

U)

1'

't

 

 

in the Divorce Adjustment Seminar did seem to show better
adjustment than those people not involved in the seminar
experience. Fisher's results, however, must be interpreted
very cautiously because of weaknesses in the design of the
study and limitations of the instruments used in examining
possible changes in the subjects. No other controlled
research efforts were identified in the review of literature
designed to examine the effects of various therapeutic
methods such as individual therapy, group therapy, extended
treatment, or time—limited treatment in conjunction with
varying theoretical orientations.

A review of the literature also revealed that no
systematic efforts have taken place designed to examine the
relationships among the aspects of the self—concept that
seemed particularly traumatized by the divorce process, or
to examine the impact of a treatment mode on those iden—
tified aspects of the self-concept.

Morris and Prescott (1975) concluded in their
article that there existed a great need for research examin—
ing the effects of different types of treatment on peOple's
adjustment to divorce and for comparing different modes of
treatment with one another. Descriptive research has pro—
Vided considerable preliminary data regarding many aspects
0f the divorce process. The time is now apprOpriate to
examine more rigorously selected aspects of the divorce

experience. The present study seeks to do just that.

 

 

 

 

-,.- ov;:£

.. __.. .- ':
...-. - :___ .- ~-
t.--— v"

__-v

- _-...-.- V...;_
-‘ V-‘:;_-. - v.

A ->- - ' 7“

 

_. :v
.. ..- --
"l ~ :.~.

 

 

 

":x I
x.\._y-..~ ..\—-‘ ““'
-—
-v.: _:\..._._...:..-_.
‘~‘\‘\.§ y.k~~~-»u.un
--; 31:.-- a: =
-. .-....: - S
- ..: :4 ...... .--
‘~ .... an .5.-. L‘
1 “V”;
~- yyby. n
F: ‘ .... - '
“ w CM: .‘2: 'f‘.
Si a»..- 1
._~ ‘ - .. ..
w ~e~ .re.
5“ x h‘ '-
......a.. i 5':
.‘o~»i , .
‘*H~~\,L ‘ 'r, a
. as 3.9

JZCEIStand m3

 

 

Purposes

The present study had two purposes. These purposes
would seem to be the natural next steps in the progression
of research regarding the impact of divorce, and adjustment
to the divorce experience.

The primary purpose of the present study was to
examine the effects of time—limited, individual, self—
concept based psychotherapy on the adjustment processes of
divorcing individuals. Although many previous researchers
have emphasized the centrality of the self—concept in the
divorce experience, no research has been conducted regarding
the effects of a self—concept based treatment intervention
on the adjustment processes of divorcing persons.

A second purpose in conducting the present study
was to examine the relationships among those aSpects of the
self—concept previously identified by researchers as being
significantly affected by the divorce experience. An
attempt was made in the present study to bring together an
assessment of these aspects of the self-concept in order to
gain greater understanding of their relationships, and to
understand more clearly their roles in the adjustment pro—
cess. These aspects of the self—concept were self-esteem,
self as a social being, self as having meaning and purpose
in life, self as accepting of others, and self as manifested

in the roles of people's lives.

.
.,--
--: :--

 

f we se-.~cc:
as having tear.
Co

05's Exxster.‘

 

 

 

 

The effects of treatment and the relationships among
these aspects of the self-concept were observed in the con-
texts of assessments of general personality adjustment,
overall adjustment to divorce, and level of anxiety. It
was expected that this comprehensive evaluation of divorcing
persons and the effects of a therapeutic intervention on
their adjustment processes would increase substantially our
knowledge regarding the divorce experience and the process

of adjustment to divorce.

Definition of Terms

 

For the purposes of the present study the following
terms are operationally defined as:

Self—esteem: an aspect of the self-concept concerned
with feelings and perceptions of self-acceptance as
measured by Rosenberg's Self—Esteem Scale (see Appendix B).

Self as a social being: an asPect of the self-concept
concerned with the functioning and perceptions of self
in an interpersonal/social context as reflected by
Watson and Friend's Social Avoidance and Distress Scale
(see Appendix C).

Self as having meaning and purpose in life: an aspect
of the self—concept concerned with perceptions of self
as having meaning and purpose as measured by Good and
Good‘s Existential Anxiety Scale (see Appendix E).

Self as accepting of others: an aspect of the self—
concept concerned with perceptions of self as being
accepting of others as reflected by Fey's Acceptance
Of Others Scale (see Appendix D).

 

Self as manifested in roles in life: an aspect of the
self—concept concerned with perceptions of self in the
contexts of life roles as measured by the Semantic
Differential developed for the present study (see
Appendix F).

 

 

 

 

. -. "_
- --|,-‘
A ‘ ‘ --‘..:
._.....- - “-‘_“k_
“~~-.‘
‘2.“ _ v:.e _ _-,,:_
.-(:-...».),~ :~,; _
w... - \ _ --
A.-. V ~.,_- ~
'.__~ : ”QT 4‘ s--
-.. m... _ _ -
.
"‘Avn
7' "“~-\.
~..; . ‘
~\ ._ “~n._
‘-s\. N .‘
v ...\.‘.‘__:
:"\\
‘k. Q‘vw

“~ §-Q:e 4 ~

‘u
UV} ,
“Wei § “ ~
' {nClY‘Qn
i “a
rib
«least

rate a More
51' Fey-I

. S ACCeptanc
individuals who

' DivOrc
1.
.mi,‘ .

 

 

Anxiety: an affective state characterized by numerous
terms reflecting stress, fear, and misgiving, as measured
by Zuckerman's Anxiety Checklist (see Appendix G).

General personality adjustment: a broad, multifaceted
assessment of an individual's personality structure as
measured by Cattell's 16PF (see Appendix I).

 

Overall Adjustment to Divorce: the process of adjust—

ment to divorce reflected in the functioning and per-

ceptions of individuals in the various aspects of their

lives as measured by the Adjustment to Divorce Scale

developed for the present study (see Appendix J).
Research Hypotheses

1. Divorcing individuals who participate in time-
limited, individual, self-concept based psychotherapy will
demonstrate a more positive self-esteem, as measured by
Rosenberg's Self—Esteem Scale, than those divorcing indi-
viduals who do not participate.

2. Divorcing individuals who participate in time—
limited, individual, self—concept based psychotherapy will
demonstrate a lesser degree of social avoidance and distress,
as measured by Watson and Friend's Social Avoidance and
Distress Scale, than those divorcing individuals who do not
participate.

3. Divorcing individuals who participate in time-
limited, individual, self—concept based psychotherapy will
demonstrate a more positive acceptance of others as measured
by Fey's Acceptance of Others Scale, than those divorcing
individuals who do not participate.

4. Divorcing individuals who participate in time-

limited, individual, self—concept based psychotherapy will

 

 

   

err" = ‘ssse

-----

... .- ....-. .-.
5... 4‘ “As '»
...., .. -c--.--- .
.. - - - -
(. - ”u t»-
..--., ...-.. -......- .
. ...-....
-l ‘u .—
..... -.:........
.‘ u . “
.c- -.- . ..--
-—. ..- .-_
41 ~'> — = .-,;

 

\;-;—. ,. .

»-—..-» -

_:_ .. -‘- __ ___

.. L. .n. ..-.. -‘
. -~

.. "“’

- IC.C

 

.:;:";~ L. ~
mug“ ---‘~
.- -
V“-»C-
L: ..
.. r:~.--

5.
o “PHHV‘A
‘V »
Q‘s-i ‘ ~
~~ta ““n‘ ‘
l - "~ -.
"““-:-5
.i‘u.
“v Yr». .
st _ Ce»;
».
-‘~ ‘lv ‘ .
“5.4.; M. ..
W the A»:
. .. 1
..
3.“ _
“nth: .
-._ “My, .
“A. 13‘
\4

 

 

 

lO

demonstrate a lesser degree of hopelessness and purposeless-

ness, as measured by Good and Good's Existential Anxiety

Scale, than those divorcing individuals who do not participate.
5. Divorcing individuals who participate in time—

limited, individual, self—concept based psychotherapy will

 

demonstrate a more positive assessment of roles, as measured
by the Semantic Differential, than those divorcing individ-
uals who do not participate.

6. Divorcing individuals who participate in time— 4
limited, individual, self-concept based psychotherapy will
demonstrate better general personality adjustment, as
measured by Cattell's 16PF, than those divorcing individuals
who do not participate.

7. Divorcing individuals who participate in time—
limited, individual, self—concept based psychotherapy will
demonstrate a better overall adjustment to divorce, as
measured by the Adjustment to Divorce Scale, than those
divorcing individuals who do not participate.

8. Divorcing individuals who participate in time—
limited, individual, self—concept based psychotherapy will
demonstrate a lesser degree of anxiety, as measured by
Zuckerman's Anxiety Checklist, than those divorcing indi-
Viduals who do not participate.

9. There will be positive relationships among

self-esteem, assessment of roles, acceptance of others,

 

 

- o --
0"
fly- ‘ A up
-...'; "-:-‘.‘-
~ no- b-
Ive-v. .
.
q'uooqu;
Io'vo'v'l
' ' "::.':.
n..-- 5
-ul
0 ‘ -l
a' -70-. :‘Q" 3‘
00-. -
‘l - -‘v-uu..-
I'v-‘- ..
\I
v - ‘
""‘r:: tar--55, ..
.uu...._-_-.-
.
.. . ' -
.:;.._
-" ~~ b
t
o -‘
.'.:: -‘ s.‘.i- E‘
.‘D-.I “.I- -‘
‘ ‘ .I
.. ‘.N‘v-- " V‘— ~ c
t" |~ \— ‘ ‘t‘;~'
D .‘. ...~-
-
- I
:\-A—.\.n- A- R‘.-.
~ -
Ishwbsunufi: .- ...~‘
.
. .. .
»:V- ss‘..-‘--“-
. - . ~
‘ “u.-. hit at“ v..-
-
‘ I
- ~“"‘.~v
. .-
-.. &oog~~-‘
o
“
\.‘ ‘
;. :-~2‘. QA «outfiq
' k»... “V ugth
~ .‘ ‘
ur~ ‘
~.“. :‘ A."'\~ an
.
P“bu b'“\-§t:
~
‘\~.‘:‘ “ ' ‘ ~
‘I-ht gs.‘\Nq-‘Qavn.
. .b..\..u~‘u.
.
a
‘Quq
‘5 v~~ ‘ ‘
|\‘»: n A 9‘
a. "w,“
“5 “Au- \ ‘ ‘ ~
u th-e e“ “A.
s \. u, o.v'
I',
'l'fi‘.
\
“5'?“ afifi". . ‘
\ ‘Ntohvt C “‘1'fij
i‘ 'C.
\
n‘r
‘ ‘Q‘ ‘
‘. ~ "A \ P
.t u~3 .“ ‘
\u‘ ‘ .
Q U.
A“
i“‘
K
N \
“I‘ \N :‘l‘ ‘ \
\uuygue' "I c- ‘
Q ~&\’ I
.\
.\
I-
\-
P» \Ier‘. ‘h
‘li.

—————————_1"

11

general personality adjustment, and overall adjustment to
divorce.

10. There will be positive relationships among
social avoidance and distress, the level of hopelessness and

purposelessness, and anxiety.

 

11. Level of anxiety, social avoidance and dis-
tress, and level of hopelessness and purposelessness, will
be inversely related to self—esteem, assessment of roles,
acceptance of others, general personality assessment, and

overall adjustment to divorce.

Overview

In Chapter II the literature related to divorce and
adjustment to divorce will be reviewed. There have been no
controlled studies regarding the use of time—limited, indi—
vidual psychotherapy as a means of facilitating adjustment
to divorce. A modest amount of descriptive research has
been completed, however, identifying the ways in which the
experience of divorce seems to affect people. Additionally,
a great deal of literature has been published by authors

with considerable variations in their credentials regarding

 

almost every imaginable aspect of divorce. Some of this
literature is prejudicial, unfounded, or irrelevant and will
not be reviewed. Other publications, however, have much to
Say about the experience of divorce, and these will be

included in the review of literature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-’--"
r ...
v p --
.a‘r-
-10 V.
o -' . a. r.
‘A ’ s ~-
"’:— ‘. .30-- .
9.:h"""
.
O
‘ ,. -..4 O
s-.-
:‘ u. :..-l .
-fi..w-u
.
, .
' an- 0"-
n.:Av-—o"" - v.0:
c.-..'D‘~"
.
I v
a;
‘ ' - - can»
“"'-"’=="-~ - -::...
.‘o-oo.h-vu' '-
.
a
. _. .~
Q-.-~".‘-~ -p; :0- i
no
bv.-'.b'-on‘ b..- b b
‘ ‘.-- ‘ ~n.~.---o-
\.l‘ a V..‘ a u. h .
""" - oyuupon- b.
o
‘ fi-n-v.--o A- A
.- ,_~
II 8555‘ghunuuu »
~
Q ’ c
u. Q
~\. "“ n...—A.h;::\
"" V...» .-'~Vbn.~u~~
.—
- ‘o
u- - .\
‘~v-.._v
-o- ~Qlu~h~-
.
‘ c- i.
t.‘-:" ‘ ‘ ‘\' " '- N
h-asb“ ““~“ .'~
.-
‘\‘-‘- Q; -h
‘\\l “ v-- .
- ‘ s ‘- h-\
. bug -»~«
-
N'
n “‘“.“‘V
\, ‘ F-
. cau~~~‘
I
h; “Vat-s
~‘ kg»! -
s.
‘5.
‘ ‘
M a ‘ .
‘_“\..: 2“‘ ‘WV-
5...“ ‘ougfi
‘h
‘s
“ “.'\ ‘ \
“‘\_\ U-. -
‘Qu, “ 9x- .
“ «C .
a
\
Us
~ “‘\ I
‘M. ay»._—,..._ .
buc.h~ .
Q
'n
A
Q
.§‘\‘ .
‘WNtE: o.‘ .
sv‘ “"3 V‘V‘~
z~~t
V.
5
“A
I h I. ‘
t Cay“ "Fn
5“.
’n
L \
"“"‘I ‘
.““‘C «“.
u ‘ “Va—l
' W»: 5:“
§

 

 

 

12

In Chapter III the design of the study will be
presented. This presentation will include a description
of the sample and the population from which it was draWn, a
description of the instruments used to examine the testable

hypotheses, a description of the procedures followed in

 

conducting the study, a description of the design of the
study, a restatement of the hypotheses in testable form,
and a description of the statistical procedures used to

test the hypotheses.

In Chapter IV the results of the study will be pre—
sented. Following the presentation of the results a brief
summary of the results will be provided.

In Chapter V a discussion of the results of the
study will be provided, followed by a discussion of the
limitations and implications of the study. Lastly, a brief
conclusion will be provided.

An attempt has been made in Chapter I to establish
the need for the present study and the purposes of the
study. We now turn to an examination of the literature

regarding divorce and adjustment to divorce.

 

 

 

.~; 2-. :_~ ‘5:
a. ...: .;—_:~ ~‘-_
W?"

“‘V‘-.._;
.. --.:__._‘ y

“A...“ -h
-~':::“ ..
:~~«-- . .__ ’~_:
0.0-“: EA; ‘ -t..
x”: “'2‘" :-.-~
.. ,.....‘ “‘--..
h: "‘ ‘. ~ ,
N.‘ - ~ ‘5‘.“ ..
c. _ _
|‘\a\, M‘cy“ ";
Y '\' . .
.._; “_v

“ uh
“ N'N I
““we 7:

.“ :etr

“‘« .
..: 1.75- IeSea:C._
23.3:

A»
w (:9 On T‘aM- 1“,;
.. .._‘ MN
"1
y. ‘
.565 on the: CM
v-

 

CHAPTER II

 

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

The volume of literature addressing the issues of

divorce and adjustment to divorce has grown considerably
over the last fifty years. The quality and value of this
body of literature have varied a great deal. Some publica"
tions addressed the legal aSpects of divorce. Other pub—
lications examined divorce from various religious view—
points. Many authors combined legal-issues with discussions
and advice about how to live and cope as a divorcing indi—
vidual. Infrequently the suffering caused by the experience
of divorce has been discussed, but it was not until the early
19705 that researchers and authors began addressing in a
primary way the emotional and psychological impact of
divorce on many individuals. This review of literature
focuses on that portion of the body of literature that
addresses the emotional and psychological impact of divorce
and the possible ways of responding to the resulting tur—
moil. Also provided in this review of the literature is a

reView of those works which provide the theoretical bases

13

 

A ’1'!-
oov be“ p.
.un u..- or- v0
I.
. . o
‘ a
’TT".'.‘." ""
owobvd' -uo‘
-'
Ao-
.-
0-19
‘. .. -
v '- A-a- CI
’ "\t-n' .-
V Obey-59..

u... .
‘1';,";'-: -ho a-
on...“
. -b-ouy. ...-=
L. ‘ -
- V.
n‘:|\ -\ .- u q.. . " a.
'vb-I 5‘ ‘ k
~-“'“v-waoh
u..-~ ‘- .
.....: 3‘1““ "x: ~--
‘5‘. baa» :.I‘
.
“'\.§
- vn ‘ .
u...'-\ ‘—.‘- "qq .
. -..|~‘|:u
‘
n .
. «u‘-
\ -Ԥv '
. .‘Hs. ‘ t :“I. ‘D-I
. Ҥ-g _
I.“ ‘-.
"‘v.
‘ v .I. ‘
‘u, o- :'-s- .
.~|“'.:u ..- -I
c... _‘
.; .
3. ~ :“‘:- ‘-
-.u~.~ V‘q-c.
Q ‘I. .0—
» ' -I
.
‘L‘v‘. . .
“"~~.; a“ ‘.__ u
q “‘IH ‘- a- ‘-
...
\l’ ‘A.
-
n
o
“
~
«I. ‘\ \
‘1-...¥~’ : .
v a..-
A. I
‘:~:"‘u .
.‘o ‘ ‘5‘ \
""‘ a "‘\
u ‘9.» \A "fiy
.. \ur
‘
lz‘ ‘
"u‘ "‘5 ‘
‘ ‘1': ”NA“
OI r
“t§\,‘ "“.‘
§g L
. u
~
g
«
s-‘I.‘\l:
M.‘ n ‘.
Q.‘ RA .
. s“: “'29. N
his ‘
u H
I
.’;‘~
\s'\ A»
u~ .
V4; S’rt.,‘ ‘
5.. fi .
u“. '\
nut ‘
' A
‘-
\ ‘
"‘ .5 .
‘3; :v‘
¥ ‘8‘.“
a.
L.“ p§
\4~
§ .
‘\.~~l
S n
Lia. *~
‘ ~L hI.‘ ‘
‘ a.
\
n
5"“
Eng“ tel;
\l re’fi \
an‘N‘
v ‘M- "
"~~'

.
O... ‘00
c i -d‘

(I1

A.

0"-..

 

————————'———'

14

for the present study regarding the self—concept and time-
limited, individual psychotherapy.

The first portion of the review of literature examines
the research which has been completed regarding the divorce
experience. This is followed by a review of nonresearch-
based publications that seem to provide insightful observa—
tions about the experience and impact of divorce, and the
factors involved in adjusting to divorce. Following this is
a synthesis and interpretation of the entire body of litera—
ture reviewed in the first two portions. The last sections
of Chapter II review the literature regarding self—concept

theory and time—limited, individual psychotherapy.

Research-based Literature

 

Almost all of the research which has been completed
regarding the divorce experience and adjustment to divorce
has been descriptive in nature. Researchers have sought to
identify the ways divorce has impact on people, the major
areas of struggle in people's adjustment processes, and the
characteristics of those people for whom the divorce experi—
ence is particularly traumatic. Almost no research has been
conducted regarding ways to facilitate expeditious and
healthy adjustment to divorce. Kessler (1975) provided an
astute, and disheartening, conjecture as to why this was
the case. She suggested that to attempt to identify ways
0f improving individuals' adjustment to divorce was to con—

done and legitimize divorce, something which middle—class

 

 

' . ll '-
z-p-ezv c" c‘. .

--.‘.. “av-nu--

r' ‘
poo—’0: O;"; ...:-' '-
a
.n-.. we .._ l U . ~ "’ .-
. ,
5- a- F
{0 co: .;:= on‘ O
as v.4- -V‘H'o-b' -u.
v -
vu-ncvqh - — h'agn
ps—o ‘ a- w-
uv.-us-|v.u -n. coco-*0»-
.
s . .
u...-. up _
-._." “-2 0-3,;-
sv-v“b.u aom~ lob-I'
-."“""‘ -v- no -.
t I ~‘ I ‘- ‘_"~ 9’
""‘b- u.~ woou’ -.o
0.
C ""“ e- ~o~ n...
... t "' \
u 5 ~ .
g-..”
--
." -._ .
..
~ :- .7. 2 n --
n...~s
_ ;g’ «0.5- ‘..
.
~.u‘”
5.. \.
.
\v
- ~ «I.
u “so. \4
~nu-- ‘
-
u. .
n‘ V. ‘- ‘
h. .5 g 2“ -A fi'.‘
~“h»u '2‘
*V 5..».
‘ I
J.‘
‘hs ‘
"‘..‘u " ‘5‘».
o.._‘ 0‘ ~fi~
us. -\
~ be

-
“-\-U: \ '

(I
(f
i
I
'1

w
(I)

D

 

 

15

American society has been loath to do. Thus, few research
efforts have yet been initiated in this area. Regardless
of the reasons, the fact is that presently divorce—related
research is largely descriptive in nature, and most of that
research has been completed relatively recently. These
studies are examined individually, with attention given to
the type of study conducted, the general characteristics of
the sample, and the observations made as a result of the
study.

Blair (1970) surveyed women's adjustments to divorce
as related to their attitudinal changes about life. She
found that adjustment to divorce was most difficult for

those individuals who were older at the time of divorce,

 

had been married longer, had been divorced a shorter time,
had lower self-concepts, had higher levels of anxiety, had
been divorced at the instigation of their spouses, and who
did not have their family's SUpport. Blair confirmed the

major hypothesis in her study, which was that constructive
attitudinal changes about life positively affected adjust—

ment to divorce. Blair also examined Waller and Hill‘s

 

(1951) General Theory of Readjustment. Waller and Hill

(1951) suggested that there were four socio—psychological
stages involved in the adjustment process. In the order of
Occurrence these were: (1) breaking old habits, (2) beginn—
ings of reconstruction of life, (3) seeking new love objects,

and (4) readjustment completed. Blair found that, for the

 

. o
. -.' 0“"0 ..:‘fl
“InfiltcO o-I'V- ‘ """ -'°

c a. .
,np- g.oocn'- O :0:
\
IL.- ‘----v-I¢s~ ‘- _.
o . .
O.-. on p- p w..- a
p v ”V ~ ‘
“vu- -v- cub- ~‘~ ‘.
p
» - o - .
-- .o.; -.-.!D
.- sup-
.. ‘uou' ‘- use-0‘
' I
.0“... ‘
. ~ ." . vi;
m-..y ‘.... . A.

“-"V..

t
I

l

I

I
{I
(n
v o.

e
.
was. _~
-

-..u-..-

{n

. ~: 'n"‘ 'n
t.. ‘.

.1

f
{1,

 

 

 

—————'————————7*

16

women involved in her study, breaking old habits was the
most difficult stage of adjustment. The sequence of adjust-
ment for her subjects was: (1) beginnings of reconstruction
of life, (2) seeking new love objects, (3) breaking old
habits, and (4) readjustment completed.

Barringer (1974) conducted a questionnaire survey
of members of Parents Without Partners. He found that the
biggest problems facing single parents who were members of
Parents Without Partners were in facing the stigma of
divorce, finding a new purpose in life, and dealing with

w depression. Of those peOple in his sample, a majority were

 

seeing their clergyman in individual counseling in an effort
to deal with their adjustments to divorce. Barringer also
found that the quality of adjustment to divorce was not
correlated significantly with the length of the marriage,
education, occupation, number of children, or size of the
community in which they lived. He did find that with his
sample at least, the quality of the adjustments made by
individuals did differ depending on the length of time
since the separation between the spouses, the level of the
dating activity going on for that individual, and his/her
church attendance.

Hackney (1975) described the psychological adjust-
ments of men and women in four different stages of marriage
and divorce. These groups were the happily married, thOSe

in therapy for marital problems, those who had recently

(i

 

 

-~

.....

.1, and an
Rinse self~perce
Hack
n the adjust:
Raschke (19'

:Sparents Without 1

VOICE stress.

 

—:————

l7

filed for divorce, and those who had been divorced six months
to a year. From his data he described a three—stage emo—
tional adjustment process to divorce. The first stage he
termed the "traumatic phase," which showed a sharp rise in
emotional disturbance between the happily married and the
marital counseling states. He said this stage was mani—
fested through anxiety, hostility, depression, self-
devaluation, self-doubt, and general dissatisfaction with
life. His second stage was the "prolonged phase" in which
counseling and initiation of divorce took place. This

period saw an extension of the symptoms manifested in stage

 

one. Hackney's third stage was the "readjustment phase."
This phase was completed seven to thirteen months following
the divorce. He said that this phase was characterized by
a drop in the individual's emotional disturbance to the
level of happily married individuals. During this phase
the individual also experienced some levels of depression
and sensitive negative life attitudes. Adjustment, then,
was marked by a decrease in anxiety, hostility, and

depression, and an increase in the person's self—evaluation,

 

Positive self-perceptions and level of satisfaction with
his/her life. Hackney found no differences between men and
women in the adjustment patterns he observed.

Raschke (1975) also did a descriptive study of members
of Parents Without Partners. She found that males had less

post-divorce stress, people who knew each other longer prior

 

-wib

. I ‘ ‘
---.o- p-nrc'r‘ #0“ ’“z

‘.w 56“..." gyvuru
o
n .
as- -Av -pn—a—
.'\ 0-‘\ ‘H
‘ -v-u cw- a..v~u
. -
Duo-v-ocau n “in"
s- c I- 9..
u-Ju-u.-b.-l Ugo-u..-
.
. . e o . o
“I‘- Ah. “ an --
‘l _ V’_O‘ 0-.
“~" 5“--‘- be. ca‘-

.Q’
--“"‘:-‘-A- .-

. 2"
a ""‘:"‘s-b.. 0-:
~-
~
§-o.‘
:s.-\ -‘.-~ “-Vm-ua
.§ -‘--‘.‘. \ H\‘
. b»-~,~~
.Cc. '
-A.\ -
‘_:. _ :fim‘ ~ g“
“on- ~»~-.‘ -.
- u..
'o...- ~
“a“ o
0-- . an‘
‘~~~~-—::.. t.“ 3 "
h‘- ~
.
v
‘Q.
' “K.
o.\\ ~| \‘-"""\v~_~
y
u | .—
\vg‘,
\e
g.‘
o ‘\
'u- ‘ an

 

“
...
“\ ‘-v
‘.‘~ : 2:\ VA‘
b-»~ I t c .'
-
C-\o
u... .
t'l“: .
‘ u :~:“‘*~.
‘\p\,\"_~ ‘ ‘ fiv-
- a:
u
S‘N..‘.
\ “ ‘
.“v§-\ 2"“In,‘
. “\-_.: “33‘
5-4
.
inflo.”
.‘t~ ~V‘“.‘._‘
‘..u&s
(EU ‘fl
. ‘5 - 'V‘
kuu ‘ufl~ha‘
- "-u- C
\
IK.‘
' Q
K s -
‘5‘“ q. 4‘
L‘ La‘a *-
5 v-
Q
‘l
5‘
5
§‘
¥q~ “Y
5 ~ ,
‘
“ 88"t9" ‘h
u ‘
-g. c:
V.
R
x ‘h

n."‘ ‘
u.
*a .
so a‘eas
:‘q ‘
\59’: “we? ,. .
\J‘il‘.‘ '

 

 

18

to marriage had more stress at the time of divorce, males
with higher occupational status had less stress, stress

was less for those further away from the actual time of
separation, older males had less stress, and males with
more children had less stress than those with fewer children.
Perhaps her most important observation was that social
participation was by far the most influential variable in
alleviating stress. She concluded from this observation
that the social and psychological factors which led to
increased social participation had a tendency to lead to
less post—divorce stress. Other findings of Raschke's were

that women economically independent of their spouses had

 

i less stress, religious involvement did not reduce stress,
sexual receptivity seemed to reduce stress, and the more
socially active were less stressed.

Hetherington, Cox, and Cox (1977) conducted a two-
year longitudinal study from which they drew a tremendous
amount of data. The results to be discussed at this time
were presented in a paper at a symposium on divorce at
Michigan State University in the summer of 1977. They found

that the main areas in which change and stress were experi-

 

enced were first, those related to practical problems in
running a household; second, those associated with emotional
distress and changes in self—concept and identity; and third,

interpersonal problems in maintaining a social life, in the

 

. a
9"» FF- "' f' - ‘
U n

q
v:':aUJ—voav -Io
.

. .
n v- A - a r- ~
‘0 fihp .I-§"l c
0'90 ooov v.0 a w w d.
.

. .
A-pv‘ l‘a

~t ”V
t- w..---..~r
.-

no’aun .-‘

\ _\‘ u‘: “Ar...-
gnu-b in- v--_’:-
u

..

I—NA_-':-Q-~A
o.—

b. .—
b..\v»' :

-“u a". _ v .
.

(I)

‘s-

‘u-\. . ‘
;‘ “'2 ~~
~‘-‘-"' u:

'l‘
‘T‘Va‘
' “~31 “3"” m. ‘

5-“ ‘
. “'-\-\.-:

:.‘s~
‘ — “‘
-‘ b. ." YA fi‘
‘ e» ‘CS u.:‘
V- \ E
Q
::~::‘- “V ' ‘
» ‘\)-\
~§\' 2"“ a
‘ “-y...: t‘f
os
..
I ;" Q.
‘~5\ \“'Va\ ‘
- ”'ErtS‘eg -L.
5...:
if:
o““‘f‘“
LV.‘.;E““ o-‘ r“
\ ~ .53..
.
‘t. e
‘
45‘s: \l‘
. r‘ .
‘L‘W'e: . H
. ‘_. 6
I “
‘%E‘b~
“3t W’NM
wwef‘ "
U
‘
v“ .
“~raf‘“Qv
“kixe’ O; .
. h-
- “i
n \
:h -
“H Uh“ ‘
‘L‘. De\ 'V
A. ' a
3L
s eSS?e II
. S {V‘N !
3' J
‘
N'II
\V*)n
RC h

19

development of intimate relationships, and in interactions
with the ex-spouse and child(ren).

Hetherington, Cox, and Cox (1977) found that economic
stress was correlated significantly With depression, a sense
of incompetence, and a feeling of hopelessness.

In discussing the changes in self-concept Hethering—
ton, Cox, and Cox (1977) noted that in the first year follow-
ing divorce, divorced mothers and fathers seemed to feel
more anxious, depressed, angry, rejected, and incompetent.
They noted that "the flurry of social activity and self—

) improvement which occurred during the first year following

 

divorce, particularly in divorced fathers, seemed to be an
attempt to resolve some of the identity and loss of self—
esteem problems experienced by the divorced parents" (p. 16).
They suggested that men underwent greater initial changes in
self-concept than women, but that the effects of change
lasted longer in women. Hetherington, Cox, and Cox (1977)
wrote that women "complained most often of feeling physically
unattractive, of having lost the identity and status associ—

ated with being a married woman, and a general feeling of

 

helplessness" (p. 15). By contrast, men "complained of not
knowing who they were, of being rootless and of having no
structure of home in their lives. The separation induced
great feelings of loss, previously unrecognized dependency
needs, guilt, anxiety, and depression. Changes in self-

concept and identity problems were greatest in parents who

 

 

.' ”v .-"'
.‘V‘ (5‘ch I'-
: ”r" --

a
)"

. ‘ n— '
:’.VC'.‘ — ~.A-
4:-..‘v""~ _'

p

..I “U"‘

......

:provec‘ adjustme:
'1} self~acceptanc
its relationship,

14“ total divorce

2:3 . ‘
Shea that the

i-‘m'o '
. r impact or.

am
~eness
I and Cl
a
Cf -
eu lives, an
I 1
teste
‘1 by an imprO'

——————-—'———'Wi

20

were older or who had been married longest" (p. 15).
Hetherington, Cox, and Cox (1977) also observed that the
most important factor in changing the self—concept in her
subjects was the establishing of a satisfying, intimate,
heterosexual relationship. Hetherington emphasized (in
personal communication, December 6, 1977) that she saw this
developing of an intimate relationship as part of a larger
resocialization process. The reinvestment of oneself in
social interaction, according to Hetherington, was the
integral factor in the overall adjustment process.

Fisher (1976) conducted the only study identified

during this review of literature which examined the effects

 

of a therapeutic intervention on individuals' adjustments
to divorce. He developed the Divorce Adjustment Seminar.
This was a group experience designed to provide support,
information, sharing of feelings, and developing goals for
the future. Fisher found that these seminars significantly
improved adjustment to divorce in the following areas:

(1) self-acceptance of the divorce, (2) disentanglement of

the relationship, (3) rebuilding of social relationships,

 

(4) total divorce adjustment, and (5) self-concept. He
observed that the experience of divorce very frequently had
a major impact on people's self-esteem, sense of worth—
Whileness, and clarity of role definition in many aspects
Of their lives, and that adjustment to divorce was mani—

fested by an improvement in each of these areas.

 

'0 --
‘ -
.nv‘: .-- A 15:-“-
v‘o»! ‘...-
D
at ‘
. Av: 9-“‘:,‘- -
b-...m¢ who.--
u
a.
“. ‘-";"“ on a u ‘
z. -: hub...» by a-
e
‘ A‘ .
g. .. .. :v--
-QQM "~ . “..u
u _ '
.. \v ~. -—“ . ‘C
o-
.:(..‘.:I\ ‘ .H» .. ‘H
5.: V 2-. “fi‘v‘.~ ‘
K.» §5§\—... 5-..~
.;~v;:: fins: ”3":-
n.~-&»-l ...~ ~~‘~‘
I C
Q‘ .
av‘s .“‘.~ _‘ ‘
‘:v \ a.
by.» -..‘\“\'u
fl \
.K“. Sun-b-
U. .‘ ~
A
3»...\FCQ: V“:vn‘
s .LUD. stvu‘u-
v.“
~
" Nu
‘5‘5 Q “Racy ‘A
yuy.tuut
.
In
“'
"Vaa v.
u.‘~ ,- NR . ‘-
.\\- “‘A
not fl-» 5‘:
‘
~ ‘
INN .
u _" ‘
u‘vsvu.4‘\. Cz‘“ ‘ a
c “§o. co.“
‘
n. .
." .
Y‘u 4 ‘
‘ ‘ 9.
«mm gne C‘YAV‘A.‘
' ‘ V~ v:
”V
k.“-

lOUsly hé

 

21

Nonresearch Publications

 

Although divorce has been a frequently discussed
topic in literature for many years, little of this litera-
ture, until relatively recently, has focused on the emo-
tional impact of the divorce experience, or on facilitating
adjustment to divorce. Several notable exceptions were
Waller (1930) and Goode (1956). The present portion of this
review of the literature is made up of an examination of
the recent works which recognize and address, to varying
degrees, the personal and social trauma of divorce and
factors involved in adjusting to the divorce experience.

Krantzler (1974) raised the level of social con—

 

sciousness regarding adjustment to divorce, and had a major
impact on subsequent publications with his book, Creative
Divorce. He wrote a very personal book that recognized the
profound pain and upheaval that many people experienced
during the divorce process. Beyond that, however, he

urged people to see the experience of divorce as an oppor—
tunity for personal growth and, ultimately, enrichment of
their post—divorce lives.

Krantzler (1974) suggested that the degree of

 

stress experienced by people during the divorce process was
in direct proportion to the part the marriage played in
Shaping people's identities. He observed that divorce led
to disruption of habits and patterns within the marriage

which previously had been ways in which individuals expressed

 

 

 

o
I p}!
- ft ..fi. :3.” ~
g... .- ‘w§ u...‘ a-
”La-we V”
__ I.
...o- AO:V"".P’
‘ ~~-v.. v
v..-- ‘-~-‘.
’ O
.. h I . ‘ -
...;n ....P -5:-
‘ -
.-“.‘ “-.. ‘9'- o
. . q Q
'4." .n-\ v- : -‘
—‘ fl - ..-
Cu-o--b\d -1. .
o -
"--- -'- :3. *..;::*:..
9-5.: -.- u».- -h a»
. .
-~.-.. - .. ‘ .__.
l- V ‘ .“H
~““-‘-.:" -5..- -uuu.
. -
‘ o
..' “‘“-I‘\n .- as.
0- \ - ~.
"‘ h»~‘--~.. . 5......
. .
.‘Q: q~_“‘a‘..n~ RH '
. .-
..‘~" V‘--~¥~u..-5“
.
:. - . ,
‘~.. A ‘5‘: -3: _ ..
N..»« 5”» -¥_“~l
.
"\¢\-.‘ .
\ " :-‘~ 'w.-w.~—
.~"“- a 0- ,_
..u “.‘by- ~‘
s
‘v... ‘
I “ _‘~~ Q Q
~--.__ \C. "‘ Av
.'-Dtu~‘-‘ y-
n~ee. ! -
‘-\ -
"‘~ \h ‘KCVQKn. .
”in- P'b‘g.‘
. Viv-—
.
‘9
\
s‘vzv-o-g '3'.
I\-
“u“"s...
D. .
-u‘ - .
q
'5 ~ ‘\-,‘
"W 3. _\“""::. 0-
_ ~y...\_,_.~
-
‘o‘ .
s §~
\. Va:
~O§§~¥

5“
t‘:' ‘\
\ out»
5‘ ¢_
"" Eu 9‘
\d
“'\ -n".r“‘
VM‘... "V “V-
‘g \4
v.0CQ
\
L‘-
o
' )- ..
§\\e‘e:‘:‘ ‘0'. 4 , ‘- F
V 9-‘
‘ \A“ |
s

 

22

themselves and sought to meet their needs. Very frequently
this disruption of the patterns of a person's life, com—
bined with feelings of failure, loneliness, and anger,
resulted in a major reduction in self-esteem. This reduc—
tion in self—esteem then had the effect of immobilizing or
impairing the individual's general functioning and capacity
for decision-making. Many feelings ensued which, for a

time, compounded the anguish. The individual emotionally

 

denied the reality of the divorce process, felt like a
social and interpersonal pariah, and saw evidence all
around himself or herself that seemed to confirm the nega—
tive self—perceptions.

Krantzler (1974) suggested that there was a pattern
to the adjustment process for most peOple. This pattern
had three general categories: recognizing that the rela—
tionship indeed had ended, mourning the loss, and emotional
readjustment to single life. Krantzler strongly emphasized
the mourning process. This is a complex process and is very
different for different people, but essentially it serves
to release the person from the influence of the past rela—
tiOnship, and begins to allow that person to develop new
ways 0f perceiving and expressing himself or herself. This
redefinition of the ways a person perceives and manifests
Self is the central component in the adjustment process,
and, according to Krantzler, is a prerequisite for healthy

adjUStment to divorce. Personal growth begins to take

 

g

 

..
or... _~--. ~
... .-

. “V~‘s-\,

x.

(I)

h

fn

0-0-
-I.‘

(lo ‘(I

( )

U)

-05

by ~..

(I)
(n

'(J
(I)

 

and goals.

This emphasis on the possibility of personal growth
in the wake of divorce became a theme in many subsequent
publications. Increased attention also began to be paid to
the role of the self-concept in individuals' reactions and
adjustments to the divorce experience.

Edwards and Hoover (1974), in an optimistic work,
wrote that singleness was a state in which it was possible
to make many discoveries about "self-identity" and to begin

to make these discoveries part of one's life pattern.

 

 

Prior to reaching that point of adjustment, however, many
people experienced feelings of failure, guilt, anger, and
hostility. Edwards and Hoover noted that "this mix of con—
flicting emotions often creates an all—pervasive sense of
worthlessness that goes well beyond the initial sense of
failure" (pp. 62—63). They suggested that a frequent re—
Sponse to this self-perception was social withdrawal. They
recommended that divorcing individuals nurture themselves
a great deal during this period, monitor their feelings and
self‘Perceptions, actively seek social contact, and estab—
lish tentative goals for themselves.

Singleton (1974) repeated the theme of considerable

SEIf-nurturing during the initial stages of the divorce

 

g

 

 

(n
_ y
(1‘
n:

..
2:13:55:-
-;.. A- "A-5_
:_(GICE 'V

' ' up 0“
..-m-~'-‘ '9‘ h ‘
LyJwve- *“ ”-I .

... v-~~:""" --
_. I.»

.—

 

__-....u- “
'I" a
".~n-«v
. t .—
._~.-v.- ‘

_ :‘ A Ana '

_ u“ - -—"““:‘

qu-Au‘ V'“ ‘

.. um: ..... -~~'

‘13:, i-:;:: w:
21:, : :e"~* ‘"
incrce decree.
fag: Ԥ I

..e_ .1“ “Q A“

~' -‘ . ‘
~ u-\ .Ctals.
3‘ y“ :
“':5» 57.5065,
:1

an informed Ch‘
Divorce counselin‘
Separation, but P1
Prmary focus Of

1:3 ~-
USher, needed

 

24

process. She also focused a great deal on the impact of
divorce on women, noting the particular problems frequently
encountered by women in the areas of self-growth, establish—
ing vocational directions, and setting new goals apart from
being a wife.

Fisher (1974) also focused on the impact of divorce
on an individual's self-perceptions and on the possibility
of personal growth in the aftermath of divorce. She saw
the divorce experience extending from the pre—separation
period, during which the couple's relationship was deterior—
ating, through the adjustment period following the final
divorce decree. Fisher (1974), as Krantzler did, based her

observations on extensive Clinical involvement with divorc-

 

 

ing individuals. She recommended counseling during each

 

Of these stages, and suggested the apprOpriate focuses for
each stage. Pre-divorce counseling focused on helping the

Couple define the problem areas in the marriage, and arriving

 

at an informed choice regarding the future of their marriage.
Divorce counseling occurred during the period following
Separation, but prior to finalization of the divorce. The
Primary focus of counseling during this period, according

to Fisher, needed to be on issues involving the children,
CUStOdY, Visitation, the continuing relationship between

the Spouses, and some preliminary concern with the future.
She Suggested that a final emotional disengagement from the

former Spouse was central to healthy adjustment, and that

 

¥

 

”IE-1: Unto-fl - Icfl‘rfl:

UV. Ug'v-v

I‘- .
fl-n: p; 3-; '
Cobhdufluv—boo-
o v
' O C Q . -.
"" ""9." z "3' ..
“sci-1.5. .. s -- -y .
I I '
.O.“‘~~ r. ”.‘-:
.:=--nnd= V- ~- ~ by
c
. I
-‘ N A .
:I‘Q :RflSRD‘- c
Q—u -UUVH._..-‘ y -
-

h I
finqoq' ~‘..v-
:-
L-~.| it
a

“"-“A'
.

Ll)
L)

‘ I
‘ \
.‘ A-“‘V -q
~u h .0 ~-

:~,:
5.5- I"-.‘u~b
'
c Q
-\ -:—-\ C 0...: '8‘
to an. n‘» 5‘.» ..~.
.‘\.:F . C" A. ‘Q
mks I .a» v.. 5»
I
“~. A.‘ . _
.J¥ ‘ . QC. fi-N‘Da‘
a. -- uh‘- U-»
§‘-
"‘ u ‘ .
In. ‘
5“‘ o‘- F‘h‘ ‘finaq
khng‘5-\'~
- y‘
.I- T‘ecQ ““5 W
‘ U"

n ‘5' ‘ ‘

nuns-U C: ‘IFC\‘.‘ F‘
‘..

..

:55- Na

.‘~ 53'

2‘:

KM Slpbortl a“. ‘
s .‘

II

 

25

this did not occur until after finalization of the divorce.
Thus post—divorce counseling sought to foster this emotional
disengagement. Fisher (1974) wrote, "postdivorce adjustment
included a variety of other goals; namely, a reduction in
feelings of bitterness and hostility, more understanding

and acceptance of self, children and ex—spouse, and of
society generally; a return to work and social activity;

and better management of personal affairs and the ability

to handle the new problems that follow divorce" (p. 119).
Fisher went on to suggest that post—divorce counseling should
focus on self-growth, redefining roles, increasing problem—
solving abilities, defining goals, and fostering self—
awareness and self-acceptance. Fisher saw the optimal way

of providing post-divorce counseling as involving a combi—
nation of individual therapy and group counseling in what

she called counseling—education groups. She saw these

groups as short-term experiences that provided structure

and support, and sought to increase individuals' rational
processes, eliminate self-defeating behaviors, and define
roles in terms of the present circumstances of each individ-

ual's life.

 

Kessler (1975) published an important and insightful
book, and based her expertise on clinical involvement and
some descriptive research with divorcing individuals.
Kessler (1975) discussed many aspects of the divorce experi-

ence, including stages of "emotional divorce," the incidence

 

 

‘ .,._ ‘—.l
.- worse -.. -“~‘

. ‘9'
ay;-;_'1atl"n t - u-

. . “.0; '
..- n“"c“ I
:2:0.-:.-.. a- . .

..
A
mi. . -c “53'5”

- V “g; A:
3.645.. ...: .. ..‘.'.

"an- A; -‘u- ..
59:: c: U- -..:‘ u

h" -_ --~c=

_;~c '
0‘ “may m.-- -

Y-x'. -. -VA-
.. _"_-.-... --~..

'::-: sh: ‘ “v“ ‘
I... ”. 9..-:55-
‘ _-,. .. ‘

N. ,t .t). ‘3 -3

.....
:~ ‘s‘ ' ‘- '
u-ub“ ‘ : ‘X‘e

::::.u|ec .h‘-

e. Gs. “C:

:.:ectively the C

Kessler (l
he ~ ‘
rte experience

Stable self defini

vaent withc

Wens of roles

We 3 life. Sh

Wets should be

Wler (1975 5) su

————-—-——-—*Wr"r

of divorce in America, possible personal and sociological
explanations for both the incidence and degree of trauma
associated with divorce by Americans, the process of adjust—
ment to divorce, and ways to facilitate adjustment to the

experience of divorce. Her observations regarding the

 

sequence of the divorce process generally were consistent
with those made by others. She saw the trauma of divorce
as resulting from the disruption of roles and habits which
were the expressions of an individual‘s self—concept within
the context of the marital relationship. This disruption
resulted in anxiety, guilt, and frequently feelings of
passivity and impotence relative to the environment. She
observed that women experienced greater stress during divorce
when they defined themselves almost exclusively as wives
and/or mothers. Those women who adjusted to divorce more
quickly and positively seemed to have a more diverse and
active set of self—perceptions which incorporated more V
effectively the disruptions caused by divorce.

Kessler (1975) saw the process of adjusting to the
divorce experience as being characterized by establishing a
stable self-definition, moving from a passive to an active
involvement with one's environment, establishing new defi-
nitions of roles, and defining goals based on the realities
0f one's life. She suggested that counseling of varying
formats should be used to facilitate the adjustment process.

Kessler (1975) suggested that counseling could aid in the

 

' .
. o. p p. . y-V
04'1”- - V- .- n
' s
Iced-IV up- D

.T' .VNHAC. vu.‘
"IVIO J-un..., '

O
I. ~ - -
1:. “5:2? ~ h”
."'| u»- |"'“ v...
-
a ; ’ .
Q . -
a“ ’”=-;3" 2::
to- b~bh54 3 --~‘
~ ‘
'-‘ .u“ "va— A .
shy-‘5-..~ -- v.' u -
.

:agzo \\ ‘. “‘hq._
s..-u -5. . ‘.‘t‘
-
-
_ .I:~*‘v-A -
C

n“ '\ .

. "Q‘flflfi‘

.u .astbbb. Esta

I “‘.~~ - ‘ .

:snpn-z: Cc. 3"“‘S‘

s “H L‘ ~

.‘,. a

““73 = c ~ .
I cla‘.\‘e 3‘

Q

\'.‘

fir

reduction of irrational thoughts, lead to resolution of

feelings related to the former spouse, and facilitate the

progress of the other components of the adjustment process.
Morris and Prescott (1975) published an article

reviewing observations they made while conducting "Transi—

 

tion Groups" intended to facilitate adjustment to divorce.
They observed that the by—products of divorce were loss of
self-esteem, feelings of personal inadequacy, loneliness

resulting from disturbance of roles, guilt, resentment, and ‘

confusion. They suggested that counseling could be an
effective way of facilitating the process of adjustment,

and recommended establishing "Transition Groups." Morris

and Prescott established such groups and observed that the
process of adjustment individuals experienced revolved

around a change in time perspective. Initially people
focused on the past, mourning the loss of the relationship,
the loss of a way of life, and the loss of part of themselves.
This was followed by a period of focusing on their present
situation; increasing acceptance of themselves as individ—
uals rather than as spouses, more acceptance of the realities
Of their lives; and the beginning of reinvestment in pursu—
ing satisfaction of needs, clarifying values, and establish—
ing goals. The last phase was a change to a future orien-
tation in which fewer conflicts were experienced, individ—
Uals again felt like they were part of society, longer—

range goals were established for their lives, and people

 

 

I- -I*~~ fl-
.av; _e..':: h-
.v" ‘-

- .. .1“ :
--; am w“ "

A ~v"' "
\fl “Ht
- '... « ""." 1
..:..:». 7- ‘”‘t‘J ‘
'nv. ‘ -~‘

‘ y .- ..
4'“. ;_ M1: m.“
. .... ,fl..a~ ;‘R-‘“’
ye“ ..... h"-

:::ect;‘:e 20::an
:.ee::ielc‘,

and 5

honest with them:
:eality end direc
by doing these tl‘
self~understendin

se=

hexpression,

in social interac
Nepolitan

head largely on

iv
We experienc

 

28

began managing their lives more effectively. In their
recommendations, Morris and Prescott (1975) suggested that
these types of group experiences be co—led by a male and a
female. They also strongly recommended that controlled
research efforts be conducted examining the effects of dif-
ferent types of counseling interventions compared to no
treatment, and also different types of counseling compared
with one another.

Colgrove, Bloomfield, and McWilliams (1976) pub—
lished a lovely book entitled ng £2 Survive Ehg £2§§ 9f 3
Eggs. It was made up of short summaries of frequently
occurring feelings and self-perceptions among divorcing
people, and others suffering losses. These summaries were
juxtaposed with short poems which further focused on the
affective components of people‘s experiences. Colgrove,
Bloomfield, and McWilliams (1976) urged individuals to let
themselves experience their feelings, accept the loss, be
honest with themselves, and assume responsibility for the
quality and direction of their lives. They suggested that
by doing these things people would be able to develop new
self-understanding, establish new ways in their lives for
self-expression, and begin to gain, once again, satisfaction
in social interaction.

Napolitane and Pellegino (1977) published a book
based largely on Napolitane's observations of her own

divorce experience. She also founded a self-help

 

 

 

ni?elle;1:s il

a: ebser.'a:i3:s

": P .:
5.9.15- .. A .....
'V VBBI‘

u. - .

_ ... .

-..3~_,‘__:- A. N
- .. s.-

c.

u
1 .
n:
n)
,4.
,i.
m
K)“
,i
(D
._ a

——_—_____________

29

organization for divorced women called Nexus. Napolitane
and Pellegino (1977) provided many practical suggestions

and observations regarding women's experiences during the
process of divorce. They also urged divorcing individuals
to maintain an active social involvement. A rather detailed
and extended adjustment process was reviewed by Napolitane
and Pellegino in which they suggested that personal growth
seemed to occur in two areas. Those areas were better
recognition of one's needs, and greater assertiveness in
meeting these needs. This growth became possible as the
individual restabilized his/her self-definitions and accepted
himself/herself as a single individual.

Weiss (1975) published the most authoritative book
yet available. It already has been reviewed in some detail
in Chapter I. Weiss reviewed the incidence of divorce,
possible reasons for this high rate of divorce; common
themes for why people seek divorce, the characteristics of
love and attachment, the characteristics of the impact of
marital separation and divorce on people, and factors
involved in adjustment to divorce. As mentioned earlier,
Weiss viewed the impact on an individual‘s self—concept as
central to the separation and divorce experience. The
impact on the self—concept of an individual manifested
itself in many ways and many areas of his/her life, and
resulted in feelings of apprehensiveness, anxiety, fear,

Panic, sadness, regret, depression, and loneliness. The

 

 

’ v . "'~ -‘
~‘A 3 \a .'
___:. fl..-
. -R -..
:- 3“: i
_ .
J.-. .. r’E """
.in- ‘ -
......... ‘-N e:
..:_.-— ' "N

..v "‘ ‘- = a
l :«-~-“' ~
.. 1. v =
\: ..:. ”35::

:.. -~-~“I" ‘ h...
a. .:::t:---5--“'

a... ~ ‘
....rce eiperle-‘C

21$ 21’ C

:esses of
It was 0k
izliericen socie
affected by the d
ab

est unanimousl

the ‘
sel.~concepts

——'———————'—'—————'v

30

consequences of this cumulative trauma were social isolation,
a lack of acceptance of self or others, a lack of direction
and purpose to life, and confusion regarding one's roles in
life. Weiss (1975) then observed that eventual, healthy
adjustment to the separation/divorce process was character—
ized by the individual reestablishing a coherent and stable
identity, and establishing a stable life pattern. He noted
that this life pattern included reinvestment in social
interaction, a clarity of the individual's perceptions of
his/her roles, an increased acceptance of self and others,

and reestablishment of goals for one's life.

Summary of Divorce—Related Literature

 

The literature just reviewed was made up of
research-based and nonresearch—based publications which
addressed themselves to the issues of the impact of the
divorce experience on people, and the factors involved in
the processes of adjustment for those people.

It was observed that divorce was a common occurrence
in American society, and that many people were deeply
affected by the divorce experience. It was observed that,
almost unanimously, researchers and authors concluded that
the self—concepts of individuals were affected in a signifi-
cant way. Further, it was observed that the trauma to the
self-concepts of people involved in the divorce process
seemed to be manifested in a number of important areas of

P60ple's lives. These areas were social participation,

 

‘“‘M. 5 .U‘
c
on. a. “V" ‘. h— .

.-

"" “~-‘." uuuuu -

‘ .
~"'---A
~ S on
so- “.6“ v

o
5 93A .. -
c- '5 ”a“ A
M >- V -bl v v‘
o... a

an .AA A“ .‘
‘fil‘u: . h '59—: a
'» ‘ hr“, .“

. ‘

..... ‘ -

I ‘Q‘ “- : ~
he..- -Mh_-~. .
h. ' ‘

.‘ .h‘: ‘“~ 0.
.~ ..1\'

‘u
u~ ‘ ‘
\. :"“Ho-An
Ifig‘l uybt~.t“ :
.
h‘Q“
~I:'- DA ‘nfll‘VHa
. by s y»- g,»
u ‘0 ‘
\2 ‘ ‘a. , ‘
-\ ‘ A He
co A...\. ‘.-S Se
\. .
.~‘
‘I‘ 5.. “Y Vu‘ q.‘ ‘1
\r ' l
‘3 \AV‘S‘
‘ 1‘ '
1 nk..Der
r.
1‘
nut. aneq‘ ‘ A
. H

 

 

— 7
31

self-esteem, assessment of roles, acceptance of others,
and a sense of direction and purpose in life. Many strong,
persistent, and negative feelings were experienced by people
during the divorce experience, and these feelings compounded
the disruption in these areas of their lives.

Adjustment to the divorce experience, as observed
in the review of literature, seemed to have as a central
focus the reestablishment of healthy self—concepts within
individuals. The literature suggested that this came about
as the individual gained understanding about himself/her-
self, accepted the reality of his/her life situation, and
began to incorporate that understanding and acceptance of

self into his/her life. This seemed, then, to be manifested

 

in the previously disrupted areas of his/her life.

A number of researchers and authors suggested that
therapeutic interventions of varying kinds may well facili-
tate adjustment to the divorce experience and noted that no
research yet has been completed examining the validity of
many of the observations regarding the impact of divorce
0n the self—concepts of people, or the role of the self-

concept in the adjustment—to—divorce process. Additionally

 

it was recommended in the literature that research be con-
ducted regarding the effects of varying types of therapeutic
interventions in facilitating adjustment to divorce.

It is apparent from the review of literature that

the self-concept is a central issue in the divorce

 

 

G 2"

Ans-P? ' -."‘

" f‘
as“- blenv

‘ .u ”I!
"‘"cu'" " s -5

u' :0 so-..»
DUO. 4

e
Ia- .
O‘.-. 0-0
“A A . .- ~
”I :: Eo'I-bo or- . h— -

" o
-‘ . .fi‘
“:3“ :u-A ‘ \-
.ubfll n.ou WOEH~~
.
u.
.h :: I...‘ - .-
b-‘ a- -5 ..... .
a...‘
‘ § - «‘- ~ zv ..
-~-\n. \— »-u“_
A‘O 0- s ‘ ~
‘ ll ' ,2 q
ch..| I--\. "
‘ -w e .
o.~¢-. ““Q ~
“'u~ . .-
. 5.. ' ~ V
-
‘I ‘
u
”UK. "hv.

“‘
;.: " uarfi- : ‘eh
~uwgv-d‘, ».‘|E
2‘ A .
h‘.‘ ‘5 Y‘ o.“ ‘ v-
v. 5‘ “
3‘ ‘
if ‘ ‘ ‘ (eh ‘ ‘
‘ "‘t id .
‘ , -' ’ .1 .‘ o
\
C‘ A .
‘~:‘:S 0‘ Q
a

 

 

 

 

32

experience, and in individuals' adjustment processes. The
following discussion will examine the literature which defines
more extensively the self-concept, and provides the basis

for the theoretical position of this study.

Review of Self-Concept Theory

 

Self—concept is a term that has become so widely
used, and misused, throughout the general population, as
well as within the profession of psychology, that any pre—
cision or clarity regarding its meaning seems to have been '
lost. Wylie (1974) noted that researchers and clinicians,
along with the general population, frequently presumed a
common, obvious understanding of the term. In fact there
are numerous theories regarding self, with important vari—
ations in their conceptualizations of the self—concept
(Wylie, 1974). These differences seem to center around the
issues of phenomenal (conscious) and nonphenomenal (uncon—
scious) variables, motivational factors, and behavioral
manifestations of the self-concept. Eventually, perhaps,
these theoretical issues will be resolved, but for the
Present it seems imperative that researchers examining self—

concept issues clearly and precisely identify their partic-

 

ular theoretical position.

Although consciousness and self have been philo—
SOphical concerns for centuries, present authors trace the
first significant psychological attention regarding self to

William James (Coopersmith, 1967; Horrocks & Jackson, 1972;

 

 

 

. .. . - ,...
It 02'“ ..2 u‘v
-.£ .... p. -

5.1- -: '1...S:,
..--E.'.\:~, .".5 1'5

x-

A” ~ a; a.
.v.. \,~‘-“ ~: -4
L‘ -u-- " ~

~——
\
s ....... an“ ‘

......

K tn
9 \ ~~ V

‘ "1595163 :25
11:2; k. .

nLH ‘4‘. :3e Val
x:
n.

S‘h‘. ‘
tn conslStep‘cy

a~ .-
. Lne SEIf‘

Lech (1

. 0mg the Se

Se r1 .
l. consxstency

 

 

—_———*
33

Wylie, 1974). James (1952 ed. of 1890 publication) wrote,
"a man's Self is the sum total of all that he can call his,
not only his body and his psychic powers, but his clothes
and his house, his wife and children, his ancestors and
friends, his reputation and works, his lands and horses,

and yacht and bank—account" (p. 188). He suggested that the
self could be divided into its "constituents," self—
feelings," and actions which were either "self—seeking" or
"self—preservative." He postulated that the "constituents
of the Self" were the material Self, the social Self, the
spiritual Self, and the pure ego. James also concluded that
these various constituents of the self, at any given point
in time, were differentially affected by life experiences.
He suggested that the impact of life experiences was deter—
mined by the value attached to the different constituents

of the Self, and the ratio of achievement to aspiration in
these valued areas. These observations laid the groundwork
for later theorizing regarding ideal self and real self,
self-consistency, and observation of different components

of the self.

Lecky (1945) clarified and expanded much theorizing
regarding the self—concept when he postulated his theory of
self—consistency. He perceived people‘s behavior, particu-
larly in the face of threat, as fundamentally being directed
toward the maintenance and preservation of their self-

Perceptions. Conversely, he suggested that life events

 

 

 

- u a V.
=" ==I'-"cse-.
“1‘ U9-- :J-U
‘
‘ «ya u o
a". any---
' ' ’ ORA
-~-- Lv..vy:.- -v‘,
‘
3: 'VRbA ’30-:
-..- I... ,c h.__
.
h\-~A F...- “.‘- ‘A
-"D m..—
m- » ~c-.. -.., -v
u
--C~A‘I.q ~ A .‘
I l ,~“f\” .- ~
"any- b_._»~ ”v u
s
‘. R‘~“ ccc,‘ R
‘ d
“-O- huh..“.“: u
o
‘s. ‘
." “‘ .-
‘1. G ‘3 “-aa‘
a h»\.\..~-§. 5‘,“
o
s~~~ ; . '
(- . Vfi~v~h “‘0‘"
5...» ...-\_,_~.. 5' ~
- .

on". ..
L... 3: \"Y¢. nh'
‘ as. u Q‘. ~ c”-
‘
"‘a'n '~
~“‘ :rC-~ “fo-
.L‘, by»
:\ 1' Y‘ R
‘. l“
x. y La-‘ la”
‘flv-
uuycv. ' C :ht I
1 '1“:
‘R... Q
h
8‘ "r. ‘H
:-.3

 

 

——7—‘—

34

which were perceived by the individual as being inconsistent
with their self—concepts, resulted in anxiety, defensiveness,
and self—preservative withdrawal.

A proliferation of theoretical work regarding the

self—concept took place during the 19405 and 19505. Wylie

 

(1961) wrote that "all the theories of personality which
have been put forth, within the last two decades, assign
importance to a phenomenal and/or nonphenomenal self—concept
with cognitive and motivational attributes" (p. 6). Moustakas
(1956) attempted to synthesize the theoretical work of that
time through publication of a collection of papers by authors
such as Kurt Goldstein, Gordon W. Allport, Andras Angyal,
Erich Fromm, Otto Rank, Prescott Lecky, Carl G. Jung, A. H.
Maslow, Carl R. Rogers, and Karen Horney. In his intro-
ductory chapter Moustakas presented a list of principles
regarding the self which he felt accurately summarized the
collective observations of the authors. These principles
were as follows:

"(1) The individual knows himself better than anyone

else; (2) Only the individual himself can develop his

potentialities; (3) The individual's perception of his

own feelings, attitudes, and ideas is more valid than

any outside diagnosis can be; (4) Behavior can best be

understood from the individual's own point of View;

(5) The individual responds in such ways as to be con—

sistent with himself; (6) The individual's perception

 

- O .
npn n'n ya:
$c'H no.“ Int“-
4
' i
'” " '3 C
s U-U-Huu- .-

F Ola Any-o-
.- ..
- 90" 9 wwwww

c

Run at... .. n

”h. “0-

“""' “up has»
0

.‘ ~VRU- ‘H:
v& “'8‘.“ 3..”
o

’ O I
-‘ :Rl‘a“. .-

u». “thu.
a
-Q ‘ ’ .
AA-
A
*» u“ a“ ’2
b-»_,_ .H
K‘ “
5" Avg. ,
-‘ H‘t- u .-
‘
. D
‘. “ cud-
-h§---~ y. b,
‘
3‘ \ ‘hqc Q.
9-
. balbge ‘-
mv .\
\u

 

 

— 7
35

of himself determines how he will behave; (7) Objects
have no meaning in themselves. Individuals give mean—
ing and reality to them. These meanings reflect the
individual's background; (8) Every individual is logical
in the context of his own personal experience; (9) As
long as the individual accepts himself, he will continue
to grow and develop his potentialities. When he does
not accept himself, much of his energies will be used
to defend rather than explore and actualize himself;
(10) Every individual wants to grow toward self—
fulfillment; (11) An individual learns significantly
only those things which are involved in the maintenance
or enhancement of self; (12) Concepts, ideas, symbols,
and events can be denied or distorted but experience

is experienced in the unique reality of the individual
person and cannot be untrue to itself; (13) We cannot
teach another person directly and we cannot facilitate
real learning in the sense of making it easier. We can
make learning for another person possible by providing
information, the setting, atmosphere, materials,
resources, and by being there; (14) Under threat the
self is less open to spontaneous expression; that is,

is more passive and controlled. When free from threat,
the self is more open, that is, free to be and to strive

for actualization" (pp. 9-11).

 

 

.
-v|r: r 1;, v0 nC-e
a...“ H on 0-
Li b ‘0.
. . . Q
brat-z-u—t "no-
[bl-ICU- fiat“. a‘V‘:
c
Q Q Q.
a na~n - nova-
” h-n
nuaCyt‘u .. v-9“.
' a

“v gnu- I -uuu- o

.

‘5'."’“P=-oan a

V‘“."H.u--v.‘ V
a

I
'.

A ’9‘ " "v’flun
. _ ’- ,.
u.-. .51 -I__:"c
.
:gvcano-snic h.
.5. :75-»..~ ».

“'Ih ,
w.“ 2": zhn “a
‘ .V~?”" “nu vs.

.‘ G V'-
»..- ~“' ‘V\U\~
v »_.| a-..

-- mm..-“ _

I. ‘ .
P ag _ .
‘: ::::C‘=.‘L‘." h
“‘ bwu
.
“‘ u ‘
. ‘~Q§
N- . h,“ a '..“ N
chM.: “.“\'
o... ‘
A .
“‘t fa'EY‘A fl
- Olbe |

 

 

,,
36

Moustakas was greatly influenced by Carl Rogers,
and the phenomenological theory of self Rogers was syn-
thesizing. Rogers (1951), and other phenomenologists,
placed a great deal of emphasis on the conscious process of
the individual. He defined the self—concept as "an organized
configuration of perceptions of the self which are admiss—
able to awareness. It is composed of such elements as the
perceptions of one's characteristics and abilities; the
precepts and concepts of the self in relation to others and
the environment; the value qualities which are perceived
as associated with experiences and objects; and the goals
and ideals which are perceived as having positive or nega—

tive valence" (pp. 136-137). Rogers (1951) stated that

 

positive feelings about self existed as long as nothing
occurred in the individual's experience which contradicted
his or her self—perceptions. When contradictions occurred,
however, incongruence set in between the individual's self-
concept and reality. This incongruence resulted in tension,
anxiety, and defensive behavior designed to restore con—
gruency. Although Rogers assigned paramount importance to
he phenomenal self, he acknowledged the existence of non—
henomenal factors in human motivation and behavior, but
inimized their potency and value in shaping behavior.

his conflict regarding nonphenomenal components of the
elf-concept has not yet been resolved. According to Wylie

1974), however, this lack of unity among theorists does not

 

 

 

. '.
70;. (5-5.»
new" '

.s F:
"833111955 “ -

_ - ,. f‘

“ A. 3.-;. u
.

3'3-1‘;

U |.~

. .. in
.- '- ‘EX:-:--' “
_..~

:Yosv-r 3“-
~.--..—‘

-u--~"‘

~ . . . A

3:23-03“: 3%
v ‘ nv‘
fillDo-L

m7

NM‘C‘

is functions 0

iefinea' “the pat

cation of their

efforts to spec

Int

her solidif.
Self-concept in
the functions 0
l2) self~
I

identii
5) rational co;
”59H. strivir
P

reViously ment:
W191 by Horroci

 

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE:::7_________________—*'
37

preclude scientific study of the self-concept. She wrote,
"regardless of the type of construct preferred, from the
point of View of theory building, the theoretical constructs
or inferred variables of the personality theorist fulfill
the same role as the theoretical constructs in other psycho-
logical theory. That is, these constructs are introduced to
help explain behavior variations which occur under constant
external stimulation, and similarities of behavior which
occur under varying external stimulating conditions . . .
Observable behaviors of some kind, designed in some speci—
fiable manner, must be the consequents in a scientific
psychology, no matter what the school of thought" (p. 18).
Allport (1961) placed great emphasis on the phenom—
enological characteristics of the self and sought to specify
the functions of the self. He stated strongly that the self
defined the paths taken by people in pursuit of gratifi—
cation of their needs and meaning for their lives. His
efforts to specify the functions or aspects of the self
further solidified the concept of multiple aspects to the
self-concept in self theory. Allport's specifications of
the functions of self consisted of: (1) sense of body;
(2) self—identity; (3) self-esteem; (4) self—extension;
(5) rational coping; (6) self-image; and (7) propriate,
or self, striving. These formulations, as well as the ones
reviously mentioned, were brought together in a theoretical

Odel by Horrocks and Jackson (1972).

 

 

 

Sorrsck

I}... -.
.. ..

a :rocess J
stasis self-pr

' I .‘...c_
. 2 nl \-
CICEL-S: .. - -

' u -.-;
7%? SuCZe:_e-

‘ | -:
“-‘-~-—'-S --
va-I - Prr‘a
he...

Win;

an Of Self‘COr
naixvidual Came

thing t(Khmer

resulted in an 1

uefines himself

called into bein

re . n
«no, in 58

self and many Si

to Horrocks an d

task
W
as to "err

"I

 

— 7
38

Horrocks and Jackson (1972) conceptualized self as
a process "by means of which the organism derives and con-
structs self—products which, taken together, represent the
organism's interpretation and meaning of itself" (p. 7).
They suggested that, of all man's interpretations, self-
interpretation was the most central. These interpretations,
the self—products, were the concepts of self which shaped
individuals' affective/behavioral interaction with the
world. Horrocks and Jackson (1972) defined self—concept
"as a value—based cognitive—affective symbolization of the
organism growing over time through maturation and accretion
of experience . . . . The concepts are ideas of reference,
images, beliefs, and attitudes the individual has cognitively
organized, defined, redefined, and evaluated through appli—
cation of and association with reality" (pp. 52-53). Criti-
cal factors for Horrocks and Jackson (1972) in the develOp-
ment of self-concepts were the meanings and values the
individual came to attach to experiences and feelings. This
coming together of self-concepts and meanings and values
resulted in an identity, which was "how an individual
lefines himself when confronted by a given context and is
alled into being only when circumstances demand a self—
eaction" (p. 58). An individual developed many concepts of
elf and many situation-related identities, and, according
3 Horrocks and Jackson (1972), an important developmental

ask was to "arrive at some integration of both his concepts

 

 

 

O’“-'v‘.fl-‘.h’ I“
:vVé-‘U L-voo U
o.

"3"” t: '3: "
bmhv. 53K”- a-
Q . .
.::l.= it»: "a”:
«5.1., ..-~ A‘s—an“

-
1.: a: " H...
---b~. - ~~.
. i ‘ .

~21“ ~ “3"“ ..

SIM
-" ubnab‘~

A-

‘ 0‘

:-- ._~
“ n H \
5.» ha.“ ‘ntera
..
SE ‘ ‘q ‘h‘
.. Fl ‘ fl
‘~ 0“ ‘EL‘
- \9
n
:“

 

39

of self and his identities and to display in his behavioral
application of them some self-consistency" (p. 59).

Horrocks and Jackson (1972) postulated that the
behavioral application of an identity was a role, and "for
roles to be important to the self—process the roles a
person takes must bear a functional relationship to his
needs, his behavior style attributes, and his system of
values. In other words, self-process can be made manifest
through identities exemplified in role taking behavior”

(p. 95).

Horrocks and Jackson (1972) presented self as a con—
struct, an abstraction which was central to man's involve-
ment and interaction with the world. Differentiation of
self as object took place through maturation, experience,
and cognitive development, resulting in concepts of self.
The association of values and meanings with these concepts
3f self results in identities which were situationally
iefined, and which were behaviorally manifest through roles.
Tom this sequence of pOStulates can be seen the relation-
hip between observable behavior and the concepts of self
n individual holds, and the differential importance of
Dncepts of self based on values and meanings held by the
1dividual.

Horrocks and Jackson (1972) wrote that when life
Periences occurred which provided evidence that a self-

ncept was erroneous, and which challenged the values and/

 

or suggrénrvc 0".

“u b .-
- “vuuosn ’

., o :3

' " '9‘! 00"

U A “fl “9“ ‘1

O'H'VO'bu an... n.
u D .

. 6. g- A - A

F. n” ”A . II“

-o-db...h by -..~
u . . .

.A ..= 'unnao‘ g...

" hi» -“u... Ann

I ‘

ha .0

h :3 - “A...-

N' is--. ..v--

c

\‘Q

-. . .

.‘QV'IA.-~ .~~:

h».b--b-..u g..- -
.

\.~."‘- Q. ~

.
O- ‘h
*5
V“....: -.. 5..
f““"‘ o-
-:—.= ‘“ ...~_
-b‘5.‘. ..‘
:‘-::- AVA ‘
‘ 9... hp '0-
v» as... b‘t...
.‘n C ‘
An
uyvu~5b ‘cu Q
2' I- -'. .
“‘ -t :0 in..-
"' HM
0“.
.
H
. Q v-
...H L

“t 0‘ t1.e in:
.s-JE‘D..e.itS are.
by i

 

40

or meanings attached to concepts of self, or caused diffusion

of roles, anxiety resulted. The degree of impact of the
life experience to those concepts of self which seemed to be
involved was determined by the depth of value and meaning
attached to the experiences, and the degree of disruption
to the individual's roles, the behavioral manifestations of
the self. Horrocks and Jackson cited Ausubel (1958) as
describing this process as "a state of transitional anxiety
occurring in the individual during periods of psychological
transition. He sees this resulting from threats to self-
esteem inherent in a situation in which a person moves from
an accustomed state to one in which a new state of equili—
brium is sought" (p. 99).

This review of self theory has sought to highlight
the historical development of self theory, and to examine
some of the important components of that theory. These
:omponents are: (1) that the self—concept can be observed
JY observing behaviors; (2) the self—concept has many
LsPects and manifestations which are differentially affected
y the values and meanings attached to life experiences;

Dd (3) that individuals strive to function in ways that
re consistent with their self—concepts, and experience

IXiety and disruption in their lives when this self-

)nsistency is disrupted.

 

.-.

A‘s-I—

.
".na.‘ '
A‘s—iv G“

F
,9, 'Q-Q'Q.‘F'
s4. Elan-.aa 30V-'

a- .h".
'::t"" ' . ..
owner-a -U -4.--

'I..WIA'.- n.- "
t- 0- . '
.H'b..buit"ld cc

.
Vin-nag . g .
_-\ ~ on”.
.v—uvu -~ spa-n.
.>-'O

I .
“ NAIR. h A?
f'. an bu.»-

"‘r~...
'- 1. VA y.‘
'csueuyu-t ‘CSC‘
4

..
«a
to. \
i...:'_ ”a: Q-AV-

‘10“ .

 

—”
41

Time-limited, Individual Psychotherapy

Time—limited, individual psychotherapy was selected
for examination in this study for two reasons. The first
reason is that it is an extremely widely used therapeutic
intervention (Malan, 1976; Small, 1971), and the second
reason is that it is suspected that time-limited, individual
psychotherapy can be an effective way of facilitating an
individual's adjustment to divorce, although there is no
‘esearch regarding this issue.

Small (1971) conducted an extensive survey of

iterature regarding time—limited psychotherapy and con-
luded that three predominant factors accounted for the
(tensive use of this method of therapeutic intervention.
lose factors were: (1) there was an ever-increasing demand
m psychotherapeutic services which was not matched by a ‘
mparable increase in trained individuals to provide the
rvices; (2) brief psychotherapeutic procedures had been
nonstrated to have a preventive or limiting role in both
(te and some chronic situations, and (3) crises and
esses characteristic of most human lives appropriately
iired quick intervention. These conclusions were sup-
:ed by Klein and Lindemann (1961) and Wayne and Koegler
6). Regarding the acceptance and use of time-limited
hotherapy by a great many clinicians, Bellak and Small
5) wrote, "many people seek psychotherapy only in

.S . . . . Quick and effective help in such situations

 

c an
r
3"“. [w J .
0.08 {:i. Q /
D“; c Q'
-onb U‘:
' ;; “0-..-
.. :- a .. ,:
J'J-u “4:--- .
. . .
I: ”QQG" A“ Oh:
.. hugvh‘ v.- ...‘
a
5.

;.-‘ ‘ . ‘

. F.“ a. A.’ ‘
u ‘ a

hub-‘~" .. c,- ‘

‘ §
.wusflb . -v"- 'I
.--~" -5 b- «e.

"K ; w .- .
‘;|: C... Gav-.H‘h
. b--..‘.
Q.‘
I VA‘A‘ ‘
I .., Y
“‘ "wmcners
i."\ “I ‘
\v a.
" t 5 RVs:
‘ -
\."\‘p u
b. \p

 

—:—_

42

can result in a decrease in pain, a shortening of the dis-
turbed period, and a greater realization in the individual's
life" (p. 13).

The supposition that time-limited psychotherapy can
be an effective means of facilitating adjustment to divorce
is based on the characteristics both of the life experience
of divorce and of the therapeutic model. As has been
described earlier, divorce is an experience for many people

‘which is tremendously disruptive and painful in many aspects ,
of their lives. It results in an alteration of many charac—
teristics of people's life styles, social involvements, and
ways of defining and expressing themselves. Many authors
and researchers regard just such crises or turning points in
people's lives as being effectively helped by time-limited
>sychotherapy (Bellak & Small, 1965; Klein & Lindemann,
961; Mackey, 1968; Malan, 1976; Mann, 1973; Shlein, Mosak,
Dreikiers, 1962; Small, 1971; Visher, 1959).

Klein and Lindemann (1961) described life altera-
Lons that seemed to be facilitated by time—limited psycho—
mrapy as "any sudden alteration in the field of social
rces within which the individual exists of such nature
at the individual's expectations of himself and his rela—
>ns with others change. Field alterations may arise from
21055 or threatened loss of a significant relationship,

introduction of one or more new individuals into the

 

 

.: o - . . .
9"" fl-sonn 0-0
I ‘9‘- I .

’“Lv -m--vu 9'.

D.
C? Ann0;cn¢ s-
3 VVca-sgbv -..

‘ '
3"..3“ '“" ":v-oo
5. '5‘ u‘ as... I
s . ‘

. ‘ F
A.-
‘ I
- .., Jo- , -.
.....
h ‘2 ~ {Uhu
”"'*'-'r a...
as. A _ ‘
4“ V. !-~'-~
un .» a..-\:-=:‘
-
.“‘“
[h \e'QAnfi
‘MH 0- a
5:»..“5. y» ‘5
:“.7I. ‘ g
u»._\ \ \ ”Q
-~ \
. ‘- 0...:
.

 

 

43

person's social orbit, and transitions in social status and
role relationships" (p. 49).

In an authoritative work, Mann (1973) wrote that
:ime—limited therapy must focus on the predominant crisis

r conflict in the individual's life. This View was sup-

 

orted by many other authors (Barten, 1971; Bellak & Small,
965; Levin, 1970; Malan, 1976; Phillips & Wiener, 1966;
lberg, 1965). Mann (1973) suggested that there were four
sic universal conflict situations. The first was that of
dependence vs. dependence. The second conflict was
tivity vs. passivity. The third was adequate self-esteem
. diminished or loss of self—esteem, and the fourth con-

ict situation was that of unresolved or delayed grief.

 

nn went on to indicate that each individual's life circum-
ances were different and therefore the specific therapy
itent would be different. In time-limited psychotherapy,
m, one or more of these universal conflicts is addressed.
n (1973) stated, "Each of the four basic universal con-
cts expresses varying degrees of the capacity to tolerate
manage effectively object loss. In the group of patients
Fering from diminished or loss of self—esteem, one

lly finds that autonomous functioning is impeded as the
lt of the meaning to the patient of a real loss, or of
as that was experienced in the patient's inner world

>ut there having been a real loss or even a threatened

(p. 76). He went on to say that "the effects of loss

 

 

halizec opera?

‘ . . '
£33231 ESE 56-:

-‘ .:‘ "F
‘3’: CC-

vuv UV-‘ ‘~‘-.

. ..
..... . neooyn
12:-» "

O

.-
| . '-
-“u-l-uuua

- ‘
:.“,-"" '3‘2VR‘“-
bv-h -5 bougco\-

- c

C
u.- 2"“
co. “nu...
‘W Au- ‘Kc “p..-
‘“: i... b » stM
‘l
n ‘ ‘
v
has. 3 -‘ \,

 

 

44

are multiple in personality development but may be concep-
tualized operationally as consisting in feelings and ideas
about the self that sabotage more effective functioning of
:he self" (pp. 26—27). These observations are consistent
ith the earlier descriptions of the impact of divorce on
any individuals, and with the theoretical basis for this
tudy regarding self.
In addition to the widely accepted method of focus—
g on the predominant, and current stresses in an individ-
1's life during time-limited psychotherapy, a number of
her general methodologies seem to be part of effective
me-limited psychotherapy. These are: (1) a greater
gree of activity on the part of the therapist in focusing
e therapy, fostering insight and responsibility on the
it of the client, and discouraging client dependence;
specification of the length of each session and the
al number of sessions the therapeutic process will last;
the promotion and appraisal of the individual's resources
her than weaknesses; and (4) maintaining limited and
Listic expectations regarding the extent of the impact
:he therapeutic experience on global personality changes
ten, 1969; Bellak & Small, 1965; Hoch, 1965; Malan,
I Mann, 1973; Muench, 1964; Phillips & Johnston, 1954;
an, Mosak, & Dreikiers, 1962; Small, 1971; Stekel,
Visher, 1959; Wolberg, 1965). Small (1971) noted that

general guidelines for conducting time-limited

 

 

 

..
(«uni-r" tr“;
yinNt/bo- -ur-

. 4

. I I C :P
6t- h? "P:_
Mere~gvu- -v

(I

A
.0- “VI
.vc‘u U-
a
. .
'u'. " ~na~uu
- ‘."“' -..u-o

A. ‘ ° C
‘Iflov'\~..‘ A
‘~ --...-. -u‘a-:

.
o . ,

.‘:’:' Y“V.- ‘NV
.mu.'~‘_‘

-M-

 

4S

psychotherapy could be applied in conjunction with varying
theoretical formulations, and that the guidelines were not
intended to standardize or sterilize the critical thera-
peutic relationship.

The present study examined the effects of time-
;imited, individual psychotherapy, as conceptualized above,
‘n individuals' adjustments to divorce, and the theoretical
ramework for the implementation of the psychotherapy expe-

ience was based on the theory of self presented earlier.

 

o
.....

 

CHAPTER III

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Overview
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a descrip—

tion of the present study. Each of the relevant components
in the design of the study is described. The subjects who
:omprise the sample for this study are described with
espect to a number of demographic characteristics. The
easures used to observe treatment effect are described in
erms of their apprOpriateness, their reliability, and
heir validity. Additionally, the reliability coefficients
atained for this sample are reported. The procedures and
Jmponents used in the actual conduct of the study are
scribed in detail, with attention paid to those factors
ich arose requiring alterations in the original procedures.
e possible implications of these required alterations are
so discussed. The design of the study is discussed, with
:ention paid to the design over time, validity concerns,
the design over measures. The research hypotheses are
orted in testable form, followed by a description of
methods of analysis to be used to test the hypotheses

to provide ancillary analysis of the data.

46

 

. C
afiunog c. ya flying
.I -
Dem-l" '16-: M- 0‘
I

‘ ' C
'Lfl "A"‘-v-o-2r~
\' u - _ _
not wad..- .4-
.

-A'- '- -
'a‘A‘: ‘ “a.
. a» .\., -.. -1“.
.-
“Fa
,‘Vz— ““ w“;
bcvfi“... “t- \l .
- OI
.....
"'\\— p.
osguys. ‘ -5 U
.h“ R:
u . N :-
~~~ “mes :'
‘
‘
u :H
.“b‘.\'t Efio-e‘
C
\
-:v._
‘ .

 

47

Sample

The subjects who comprised the sample for the present
study were divorcing individuals from Ingham County, Michigan
who voluntarily participated in a short—term counseling pro-
gram between January, l978 and January, 1979. An attempt
was made to bring to the attention of almost all divorcing
persons in Ingham County the availability of this counseling
program designed to assist them in their adjustment pro-
cesses. This was done by distributing brochures through
the offices of Friend of the Court, Legal Aid, the Women's
Resource Center, Lansing Community College, Parents Without
Partners, and the Domestic Assault Program within the Depart—
nent of Social Services which described the counseling/
research program. There simply was no way to determine how
any people actually read and considered the brochure. It
5 known that over the lZ—month period approximately 2,500
rochures were distributed. Some individuals undoubtedly
eceived the brochure more than once simply because these
gencies provided their various services to the same finite
>pulation.

The final sample was made up of 42 individuals. Of
e total sample, 31 were women and 11 were men. These 42
ople were part of a group of 96 people who phoned in
sponse to the brochure. Over 40 of those individuals
Te interested in counseling, but did not become subjects

this study because they were interested in marriage

 

 

_. . .'.
V ,..nc"

A -.
it»: DI..--“""

....-v-""' U
__u_.,-..-I "

2"

H] 5““

uu. “‘5‘- A“-
....C

.... 3“”

Dr ‘ ~ '

. «‘- ‘
::“=‘ .. A: .‘r
.x ‘‘‘‘‘ \c V‘ L-
-: -~~‘ :"“’:‘~
u.» 4&5.» ‘“__\‘C..A
«:vv‘n ‘ "
past 5 are 41“
:m".

“are experlE
1: need of con:
suc‘y, however,
lation of divor
those people wh
05 the experien
“Ere willing to
resolve the pro

that the sample
the larger grou

acteristics.

UiVOrcing peopl

 

 

————_W
48

counseling with a goal of reconciliation. These people
were referred to individuals in the professional community
who provided those services. The remaining 12 people who
were not included in the final sample were eliminated as
viable subjects for the various reasons cited in the pro—
cedural sections of Chapter III. The final sample, then,
was made up of 42 individuals who were in the process of
divorcing, who perceived themselves as being in need of
counseling, and who voluntarily agreed to participate in
this project.

It is unknown whether or not the sample is repre-
sentative of the entire population of divorcing persons.
The most fundamental difference is that not all divorcing
persons are in need of counseling services during their
iivorce experience, or do not perceive themselves as being
.n need of counseling. No effort was made in the present
tudy, however, to make observations about the entire popu-
ation of divorcing persons. Rather, the focus was on
hose people who were struggling in their lives as a result
E the experiences of divorce they were undergoing, and who
are willing to involve themselves in counseling in order to
solve the problems. To that extent the researcher thinks
at the sample for the present study is representative of
a larger group of divorcing people who share those char-
:eristics. It would seem safe to assume that nearly all

orcing people who involve themselves in some type of

 

 

 

crogra: ceszgn

”F"¢‘.'\ ' .-
.Vodnavco -Q‘. 0

UK. ”M. U.»."
. a
. . .
0.5- .yfi” a
55—. --V H..

L.‘
n" “A ‘ ‘
"is. .

V 'V

I H1-‘ure’
‘V‘A ‘

q ‘

u.t “2" n

““u k, 'Q?‘f\r

H~~V‘

 

 

49

program designed to facilitate adjustment to divorce, do so
voluntarily. Thus, the fact that the subjects in the present
study participated voluntarily would not seem to isolate

them from all other divorcing individuals, or make them
unrepresentative of a great many divorcing people.

The complete demographic breakdown of the sample is
provided in Table 3.1. These data were gathered by asking
each subject to fill out a face sheet at the pretest
(Appendix A). The total sample had a mean age of 31.28
years, a mean length of marriage of 8.26 years, and an
average of 2.28 children. Nine of the 42 subjects had been
married previously at least once. Four of the 42 subjects
had no children. Thirty-one of the 38 subjects with chil—
iren had custody of their children, while one subject had
joint custody of his children.

A rather interesting characteristic of the sample
as that 20 of the 42 subjects had initiated the divorce
ction, and yet were involving themselves in a counseling
rogram. This would seem to provide contradictory evidence
3 the conventional, although largely undocumented, percep—
.on that the person initiating the divorce action is
ually less likely to experience significant stress and
sruption in his/her life than his/her spouse. This issue
11 be examined in greater detail in the Analysis of Data.

Data were obtained regarding two important time

ervals. These intervals were the time between the final

 

 

 

 

 

Iris 3 - ”36:13;
sto‘ 25:”- .a:-a
y-

 

.‘EEZ ",3. ;:
I:_i_‘=_55

 

 

50

able 3.1.-—Demographic Characteristics of the Sample.

 

 

. . Total Experimental Control
V . .
emographic ariable Sample Subjects Subjects
ge: Mean in Years 31.28 31.38 31.19
Range in Years 21—44 22-43 21-44
ax: Males ll 6 5
Females 31 15 16
angth of Marriage: Mean in Years 8.26 8.60 7.9
Range in Years 2-17 2-17 4-16
mber of Previous Marriages
(Total Occurrence): 9/42 3/21 6/21
Subjects with 1 Previous Marriage 4 2 2
Subjects with 2 Previous Marriages 3 1 2
Subjects with 3 Previous Marriages l O 1
Subjects with 4 Previous Marriages l O 1
mber of Children: Mean 2.30 1.90 2.66
Range 0—8 0—5 0—8
bjects with No Children 4 3 1
stodial Parent: Subject 31 14 17
Spouse 6 3 3
Both 1 1 0
son Desiring Divorce: Subject 20 8 12
Spouse 18 ll 7
Both 4 2 2
erval between Final Separation
1d Filing Petition for Divorce:
Mean in Months 3.35 4.10 2.52
Range in Months 0-24 0-13 0—13
er of Subjects with No Interval 13/42 6/21 7/21
rval between Filing Petition
r Divorce and Seeking Counseling:
Mean in Months 1.30 1.60 1.00
Range in Months 0-8 0-8 0-5

er of Subjects with No Interval 22/42 9/21 13/21

 

 

 

 

 

 

A 0
:‘v‘ ‘ 1 -- f.”
"1.4-: 4'... U"
%
“7.....c- ...r.
a 9' g”
.-~-.-.~ H-
.
4.
. . . .

. - - .. —.
0— -7'... N“ V‘;‘
C Q"--- .U‘.’—“

x ' -
“ff-nay no : .p
- b- v- up“.
_ . _
':-. A-nv-au
"' :‘v‘-':
9.- I

V‘s

'§\

 

.
K

II

-.

 

 

 

51
Table 3.1.-~Continued.
Demographic Variable Total Experimental Control
Sample Subjects Subjects
Referral Sources:
(Number of Subjects from
Each Source)
Friend of the Court 21 11 10
Legal Aid 11 4 7
Domestic Assault Program 5 3 2
Lansing Community College 5 3 2
Hmual Financial Resources:
(Number of Female Subjects
in Parentheses)
$5,000 - 10,000 25 (25) 12 (12) l3 (13)
10,001 - 15,000 5 (2) 4 (l) l (1)
15,001 — 20,000 7 (3) 3 (2) 4 (1)
20,001 - 25,000 1 (1) O (0) l (1)
25,001 - 30,000 1 (O) O (O) 1 (0)
30,001 — 35,000 0 (0) O (O) 0 (0)
35,001 — 40,000 2 (O) l (O) 1 (O)
l (0) l (0) O (0)

40,001 — and up

 

 

a- . 'A
.75 h- .h“
5‘5 V. ‘5": ‘5
\H‘n .- v *“
I

‘.]‘.‘ 2 .6. L, ‘

ha .2 A‘

:1. M

s‘ ‘ h

‘

5v.\."\.L “#tn :.

"q‘l‘a ‘ .- ‘

w.i\.ge' anc ::
“rm“ NO SL

"1

.119

 

 
 

 

—7—th

52

separation and the formal filing of the petition for divorce,
and the time between the filing of the petition for divorce
and when the individual sought counseling. The mean inter—

val between the final separation and the filing of the

petition for divorce was 3.35 months. Thirteen of the 42

subjects reported that the petition for divorce was filed
within the first month following the final separation. The
mean interval between filing the petition for divorce and
when the person sought counseling was 1.3 months. Twenty-
two of the 42 subjects sought counseling within the first
month after the petition for divorce was filed. These
>bservations will be discussed more fully in Chapter V.

Half of the sample, 21 subjects, was obtained through

ontact with Friend of the Court. Eleven subjects came

rom Legal Aid, five subjects came from Lansing Community
allege, and five subjects came from the Domestic Assault
rogram. No subjects in the final sample had learned of

m counseling program through Parents Without Partners or

e Women's Resource Center. As can be seen in Table 3.1,

er half of the sample was in the $5,000 — $10,000 range of
nual Financial Resources. These 25 subjects were all

men. Five subjects had financial resources of $20,000

more. Four of these five subjects were men. Although
ale subjects dominated the lower end of the financial

ctrum, and male subjects dominated the upper end, the

dle range of financial resources was almost evenly shared

 

 

b71263 an... 'I'O...

C)

:' subjec:s be

this cue-53:2:

2" ti. 2" 3
H. u“.--..- u
.
.h:‘ Qflfil. N .0!
s-ohv g. .U' u b
n

H“ .K

.“ .he Vargas
nu 5.. ‘5'-»V
.‘

s ‘l‘ _~

‘ I v-

a ‘ .
»:‘al‘ &"20- 0-‘hn‘
‘5bu spa-u» bc.:

 

53

by men and women. There was a very balanced distribution

of subjects between the experimental and control groups on
this dimension.

A review of the demographic breakdown for the experi—
mental and control groups revealed that the two groups were
very similar across almost all dimensions. The dimension
that showed the greatest apparent difference between groups
was the "Person Desiring the Divorce." In this category
50% more control subjects than experimental subjects indi-
cated that they had initiated the divorce action, while,
:onversely, 57% more experimental subjects indicated
:hat their spouses had initiated the divorce action.
dthough this appeared to be a major difference, it did not
move to be significant in the analysis of data. In fact,

here proved to be no initial differences between the experi—

ental and control groups.

Instrumentation

'erview

The selection of the instruments used in the present
udy was based on previous research regarding the divorce
perience, and the self-concept theory presented in
ipter II. It was observed that the divorce experience
la major impact in many people's lives, that this impact
med to involve certain aspects of the self-concept, and

t eventual adjustment to the divorce experience centered

 

-‘hanv

‘E 3" “HA '.-

- A

h~|~‘-e Vt nus
Q

As Qty: ‘-“'\$‘h:

&. so» “‘UV- 5“

. .
‘ .
V: =‘ufiHSh‘v‘ Q
Q‘QIS‘L“ “.-~ a
n

 

—.—"

on these aspects of the self—concept. It also was observed

that the historical development of self theory had resulted
in a broadly based perception that the self—concept was
composed of many aspects, or manifestations, of self.

These aspects of the self were differentially affected by
life experiences, based on the values and meanings attached
to those life experiences by the individual. Thus, previous
researchers and authors had suggested that the divorce
experience was traumatizing to a great many peOple because
of the important value and meaning attached to the marital
relationship as a central means for definition, expression,

and fulfillment of the self. With the ending of that rela—

tionship came the loss of that central means of self-
iefinition.

The intent in the present study was to observe the
ossible effects of a time—limited, individual, self—concept
ased therapeutic intervention, provided during the divorce
xperience, on these aspects of the self—concept, on more

aneral characteristics of the personality, and on the

ferall adjustment process. The broader measures of person-

.ity and the adjustment process provided a more compre—
nsive assessment of the subjects, in the context of which
e self—concept measures could be understood more meaning-
11y.

It was noted earlier that previous researchers

antified anxiety as a feeling state almost universally

 

.- . .'\va
5103116226": ..

iimrce experi-

' _ C 0
A?‘-A.nn .“flvc
howb‘y -IOU. bl

' Q'
"‘“ "- ’ ans-a .
h": “' ---\r\i¢.\r6|
I

:7: .‘“ 'fivaénn a!
in H-|g-\'-..u M
' .

.5.."?~A 5 “Ag--
'-

‘.|'."5 du:--

.

 

55

experienced by divorcing persons at some point in the

divorce experience. These researchers also observed a

dramatic increase in anxiety with disruption and trauma to
the self-concept, and suggested that anxiety would decrease
as divorcing persons made satisfactory adjustments to their

divorce experiences. For these reasons it was decided that

inclusion in the present study of an instrument designed to
assess the degree of anxiety was integral to a comprehensive

understanding of the treatment intervention and the adjust—

ment process.

The final instrument included in the present study
was used to assess the believability, or the degree of dis—
tortion of the subjects' responses on all of the measures.
All of the instruments used in the study were self-report

in nature, and thus, subject to the possibility of faking.

Vylie (1974) wrote, "in order to index constructs involving

“5 phenomenal fields or phenomenal self, E must use some
Orm of self—report response made by S as a basis for his

nferences . . . . Despite their many limitations, these

ethods seem to be the only kinds appropriate to this type

Econstruct" (p. 39). wylie (1974) noted that one of the

dor limitations of self-report instruments was their sus—

ptibility to distortion. She concluded that there was no
tisfactory way of eliminating this concern and concluded
it "the matter of deliberate deception of E is probably

it handled by establishing testing conditions which

 

tare 23.38 :3 E

‘ C . '

Ola Aq—.‘. -V'fi
:- p H
“4% uh‘..-s--_

' u
...‘~. ”Hi. Q. '
"""" ' oov'c c

9.5.,

.".: ‘f‘. C";“ 0'!
"t" ”V Vita Ex.
—

 

— .

maximize rapport with E and make it worthwhile from S's

standpoint to be as honest as possible" (p. 59). Efforts

were made to establish rapport with each subject prior to

the administration of the pretest and posttest. In addi-

tion, however, it was decided to include an instrument sensi-

tive to subject distortion. This procedure also had some

limitations, for as Wylie (1974) wrote, "we must conclude that

research thus far has been more useful in revealing blind
alleys than paths to the goal of evaluating the distorting
influence of tendencies to respond in a socially desirable
way upon the validity of self—report instruments for evalu-
ating the self concept" (p. 61).

Despite this limitation of possibly not being able

to specify the manner in which subject distortion might

affect the validity of the other instruments in the study,

it seemed valuable to know if, in fact, subject distortion

were a factor in the obtained results.

Instruments

Self—Esteem Scale. Rosenberg (1965) constructed
he Self—Esteem Scale as a short, unidimensional measure

f self-acceptance. The instrument was used in the present

:udy to measure the degree of self—acceptance among divorc-

19 people, and the treatment effect on these individuals'
lf-acceptance. It is a 10-item Likert instrument

ppendix B). Silber and Tippett (1965) reported that the

 

 

. an .-
t )-.n v“
. _.. A,
‘.;¢-' ‘_. --
.~--‘"'-“ .

. _-' 1
.~ --.n
-. .. a- .
5:-‘M:'“"

....‘ ~,.,.— ""21
L”: vare‘5’

.1: 552.; e 1‘
Social
K

it. .sers is

-25 bee“ isle."

5e. -.nc:ior:i

Jere: experi

Sscial Avoidan
participation,
herself in the
instrument was

aspects of sel:

the time~limit<

The So<
irue~false meas
found that thei

leneity_ They

The producbmom
Jhe Kuder‘RiCha

' and the te

 

—:fi"

instrument had high reliability and provided a thorough

measurement of self-acceptance. A Guttman scale reproduci—

bility coefficient of .92 was obtained, while a test-retest

reliability coefficient of .85 was found for the instrument.

Validational studies found that the scale correlated .59

with Coopersmith's Self-Esteem Inventory. An internal con-

sistency reliability coefficient of .90 was obtained for
the sample in the present study.

Social Avoidance and Distress Scale. Interaction

with others is an important avenue for self-expression, and
ias been identified in previous research as an aspect of

self—functioning that is dramatically affected by the

fivorce experience. Watson and Friend (1969) developed the

ocial Avoidance and Distress Scale as a measure of social
articipation, and of the individual's perceptions of himself/

arself in the context of interpersonal relationships. This

mtrument was used in the present study to observe these
pects of self-functioning among the subjects involved in
e time-limited therapy experience.

The Social Avoidance and Distress Scale is a 28—item

1e—false measure (Appendix C). Watson and Friend (1969)

1nd that their instrument had a very high index of homo—
eity. They derived a mean biserial correlation of .77.
product—moment correlation of the two subscales was .75.
Kuder—Richardson formula 20 reliability coefficient was

and the test-retest reliability coefficient was .68.

 

. $§nr ’5
A, .
Sin-38.3.“... v

IIIII pf. or
“iv -U-‘ V-
-.
‘-
:9 a U. A“;
Oh--. vvy-ng.
.
Q
on
a: “'::;9-o- a.
“any 5-5--.. ‘I'
n
:fl~‘\nl
0699:”.
—-—._A_
-~-._.J” .
A
3.; ‘ “F\ar
V .- U~~bc

ha A “A
u-l»-pt t\~=r
.
DEI“"~-~ «z.
.

h .— as
\y‘. " L-¢&.LE

'''''

 

58

A number of validational studies were conducted in which a
correlation coefficient of .54 was obtained with the Taylor
Manifest Anxiety Scale, and .45 with the Endler—Hunt S—R
Inventory of Anxiousness. An internal consistency reli—
ability coefficient of .94 was obtained for the sample in

the present study.

Acceptance of Others. Previous researchers fre—

 

quently observed a tendency among people traumatized by the
divorce experience to be less accepting of others, and to .
perceive themselves as less acceptable to others. Fey

(1955) discussed the possible relationship between accept-
ance of others and self—acceptance. He differentiated

Jetween the two processes, however, and defined them both

is self—functions. Logically, it also would seem that
cceptance of others would be closely related to social
articipation. The distinctions between these two aspects

f self—perception center on the origin and function of the
elf—perceptions. Acceptance of others seems to be a self—
inction related to experiences and perceptions of vulner-
uility, trust, and fear of unacceptability to others (Fey,
55). Divorcing people have demonstrated to past researchers
rceptions of betrayal by their spouses, an inability during
a divorce experience to accept and trust others, and an
ierlying self-perception that their own shortcomings and

k of acceptability brought about the divorce. The

:tion, then, of not accepting others seems to be

 

 

.. :‘..-; .-
€“C’.TiCuc- re

‘ ' a ‘y.
,.
”r": t..- .,1
an-..

a

4‘ "av..-

1.5;“: e)

;. ... ..
~35 news.
“u- . ‘1 A AA
i-u-E '1: c p:
‘An.‘.- {I‘ ,. n
kiwi- ‘ ,»e~a\'
- ‘2“ "" n~
c....-_e“¥‘ u

‘ A “6-

13.63.,“
‘i;;\ . “I

l ‘n

.4.-. cg eas1
“‘eka

(Sim? Likert

:he acceptanCe

“eke up the aCc
reported a Spli
the acceptanCe
ccefficient of
EEIEpQrted no .
ability Coeff i c.

the preSerit stu<

a
n acceptab i lit

 

59

self—preservative in nature. By not accepting others the
individual perceives himself/herself as being protected
against the betrayals and rejections that such acceptance
brings. Social interaction, by contrast, seems to be a
self-function related to a context in which self—expression
previously has taken place, but which has been altered by
the divorce experience. The divorcing person is no longer
part of a couple. Past activities, friendships, and social
groups frequently seem no longer to fit. Thus, divorcing
people have been observed pulling back, withdrawing from
social interaction because of the incongruence they were
experiencing.

Acceptance of Others was a scale devised by Fey
(1955) to measure acceptance of others and feelings of
acceptability to others (Appendix D). The instrument is a
25-item Likert scale in which the first 20 questions form
:he acceptance of others measure and the last five questions
ake up the acceptability to others measure. Fey (1955)
sported a split-half reliability coefficient of .90 for
he acceptance of others scale and, a split—half reliability
>efficient of .89 for the acceptability to others subscale.
treported no validity data. Internal consistency reli—
ility coefficients of .79 were obtained for the sample in
a present study on both the acceptance of others scale

[acceptability to others scale.

 

 

0—”
' “ Nana
N..-
.::I.".......
.

A
IN Afi.f\n “II
“I wku ‘4

. - ‘~"A"\O a.
I—
.‘O: ab~\'\vb U4
‘
.a‘l‘ '“ “any.
p
L:;:m-t \~~~\.
.§
'.' . _
I~GV - “ARO-
h
u.:‘9--:- “VC‘-
s " .
5“. “‘A“-
fl.
cc»--‘~;: -
q ‘ A .
.“I‘ :F‘ .qhn
5»u H \l’vvu
h -' '“
|_ I h
QQHQ5I. ‘1.
¢

T385312 C0081
cztained :or t

Semen -
obsen.

9d that 1

31055 of role

 

—: - r v 'r

60

Existential Anxiety Scale. Feelings of despair,

 

lack of direction and purpose, and loss of meaning to their
lives are frequently described by divorcing individuals.
Previous researchers have documented the prevalence of this
response. The Existential Anxiety Scale developed by Good
and Good (1974) was used in the present study to measure
this aspect of self. The scale is a 32-item true-false
measure (Appendix B). Good and Good (1974) reported a point
oiserial coefficient of .49, and a Kuder-Richardson formula
20 coefficient of .89. No validational studies were cited.
:00d and Good (1974) argued that the instrument had face
alidity. They also suggested that as the instrument was

sed in research projects such validation would come. An

 

nternal consistency reliability coefficient of .94 was

tained for the sample in the present study.

Semantic Differential. Previous researchers have

 

served that the divorce experience frequently resulted in
loss of role definition, and in immobilization in various
pects of daily functioning. In fact many researchers sug—
Sted that an integral part of adjustment to divorce was
:ablishing clear and consistent self—perceptions in the
:fering contexts of each individual's life. No instrument
identified by this researcher that could provide a com—
iensive measure of divorcing persons' self-perceptions
)55 the various roles assumed in life. For that reason

mantic Differential was constructed to provide this

 

assessment 53

fi.:: Y ”Q; .
v.4.e.eu'.a.a-

VA A: h F“ _“

.......... --
o

A 3‘.“ ' Q

.7" "" ‘nn

 

61

assessment for the present study (Appendix F). The Semantic
Differential consisted of 16 roles to be rated on 16 bipolar
scales. The roles were selected based on their general
applicability to most people's lives, as well as several
roles being unique to the circumstances of the lives of
divorcing individuals. The 16 bipolar scales were constructed
as unidimensional, mutually exclusive comparisons. The
intention in this method of construction of the instrument
vas to make it possible for subjects to make very fine,
iiscrete assessments of themselves in each role of their
.ives.

The semantic differential was originally developed
y Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957). Osgood, Suci, and
annenbaum (1957) reviewed their efforts to establish reli—
bility and validity for the instrument and presented the
pgic of why it was impossible and, in fact, unnecessary to
stablish reliability and validity for the semantic differ—
tial. They stated that "since the reliability of a con—
pt meaning conceived as a point in the semantic space is
npletely dependent upon the reliabilities of the factor
>res of which it is composed, no separate estimates can be
en" (p. 140). Regarding validity Osgood, Suci, and Tan-
baum (1957) wrote: "the semantic differential is proposed
an instrument for measuring meaning. Ideally, therefore,
:hould correlate semantic differential scores with some

pendent criterion of meaning——but there is no commonly

‘ RY ‘- FF ’
‘ .oLEI‘Uoi' .
‘ R. Q "
OAAA [y -
o'vt ia--u--:
‘. I. .
.~“ ‘ -e.

 

 

 
 

 

——ii:.—~'r

62

accepted quantitative criterion of meaning. In lieu of such
a criterion, we have fallen back on what is usually called

face validity" (p. 140).

Anxiety Checklist. The Anxiety Checklist developed

 

by Zuckerman (1960) was used in the present study to measure
the degree of anxiety experienced by the subjects. The
instrument is a list of 21 adjectives (Appendix G). The
individual completing the checklist checks only those adjec-
tives that describe how he/she is feeling either generally or
at that moment. Zuckerman (1960) established separate reli-
lbility coefficients for the measure when used as a reflec-
1on of general feeling or a reflection of feeling at that
bment. When used as a general statement of feeling a
est-retest reliability coefficient of .68 and an internal
pnsistency reliability coefficient of .72 were obtained.

men used as a reflection of how an individual felt at that
ament, an internal consistency coefficient of .85 and a
)st—retest reliability coefficient of .31 were obtained.
ckerman advised using the "at that moment" instructions

th the measure in test-retest situations of a month or

re. Those were the instructions used in the present

fly. Zuckerman (1960) conducted a validational study with
Manifest Anxiety Scale and obtained a correlation
Eficient of .58 using "at that moment" instructions,

a coefficient of .65 using "generally" instructions.

63

An internal consistency reliability coefficient of .89 was

obtained for the sample in the present study.

Social Desirability Scale. The Social Desirability

Scale was used in the present study to measure the believa—

bility of the subjects' responses. The instrument is made

up of 33 true-false items (Appendix H). Crowne and Marlowe

(1964) constructed the instrument to identify individuals

who describe themselves in favorable, socially desirable

ways. The instrument has two subscales: Deny Bad Qualities

and Claim Good Qualities. The inclusion of this measure in

the present study made it possible to monitor the presence
of manipulation or distortion of responses by subjects.

Crowne and Marlowe (1964) obtained an internal consistency

reliability coefficient of .88, and a test—retest coefficient

of .88. Crowne and Marlowe (1964) reported that they vali—

dated their instrument by confirming several hypotheses in

experimental settings. Correlational results, however,

were not reported. An internal consistency reliability

coefficient of .86 was obtained for the sample in the present

study.

16PF. The 16PF was originally constructed in 1949

W Raymond Cattell. Since that time a number of revisions

f the instrument have taken place, multiple forms have been
EVelOped, broadly based norms have been established, and

mmrous research projects have been conducted with the

 

:.q+?‘l°fl's"'
1;... v“.-.

C O P
n.
7. ““.V" ‘
meaDhC -v u-
9..“ a oy:o-=
6J5)» b-n- -u
. ’
..... g A. -
u— - '2‘
‘V‘V‘OL'H v- 5
.
q
:R’:~.- R =‘»—’.
they---» vbu.
.

-V-
. .-
;‘:- ‘u‘a -flv'
“abh-b-. -V-

cm
I‘QA “Av-g.
_\_ VIN ..
..»b» y‘, b-a:
u
“a
Go.» .'
n
9“ ~ ‘
'-_ ‘““V’\
b ._ "
tab :tocy-c‘ U
a
x
‘h

 

 

64

instrument. The instrument was originally designed to

measure 16 different personality trait factors (Appendix I).
These traits were hypothesized to be fundamental, stable

features of the personality, as opposed to situationally—

specific states the individual might exhibit. Each factor

was expressed by means of a bipolar scale. A summary of the

contrasts for each personality factor was developed by the
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing (1972).
These contrasts are presented in Appendix I.

The 16PF was used in the present study to measure
the general personality features of the subjects, to measure
the possible effects of the time-limited therapy on those
general personality features, and to observe the possible

relationships among the measures of aspects of the self-

concept and these general personality features. Form B was

used throughout the course of the study. The following

test-retest reliability coefficients have been reported for

each of the 16 personality factors:

Source Trait

C E F G H I L

.74 .80 .81 .77 .89 .79 .77

Form N A B
B 958 .75 .54
M N 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

.70 .60 .81 .70 .75 .62 .87

httell, Eber, and Tatsuoka (1970) examined the construct

alidity of the 16PF by correlating each scale with the pure

 

’ p. - '-
.¢on .,
-. A
.GLDuufiu J
c- n
’5'. n
ov-—A .4.
Ofi" ‘
0b-.“ .\
———_‘
‘ - -A
3 H‘-
"V
m
u.
‘
- a
s
v
“‘ ‘
. ‘A —.
'“"‘-¢-'I 222'
v-
.2... . ‘
_ n ‘ ‘l
"w \L-Cc" "
c»
‘. I
I“ ::e “v“fl‘ as
0..
~ctc-:

 

65

factor it was supposed to measure. Cattell, Eber, and

Tatsuoka (1970) reported the following correlations for

 

Form B:
Source Trait
Form N A B C E F G H I L
B 958 .78 .44 .66 .64 .79 .69 .87 .75 .63

M N 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
.73 .60 .81 .51 .70 .69 .59

Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka (1970) acknowledged that "since

the validation of a test against a source trait hinges also
on the precision with which the simple structure resolution
of the personality domain is first made, any full evaluation
of the validity of the 16PF must include evaluation of this

foundation" (p. 42). Citing research efforts regarding this

issue, Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka (1970) noted that the
16PF covered the greater part of the factor space of both
the Guilford—Zimmerman questionnaires and the Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Cattell, Eber,

and Tatsuoka (1970) also noted that the 16PF "factor con-
cepts reach higher simple structure hyperplane percentage
counts than those of any other published resolutions" (p. 42).
In other words, the 16PF seems to provide an assessment of

>ersonality features that is at least as comprehensive and

slid as any other existing general personality measure.

 

 

 

‘g -
t
.H' A~v
I— "A
‘5‘ I

‘--.V:
‘I‘ ~

.
s\§F -A 9n“
u...“ 5x,

.A 77"” ken. +
5» tug“

I
-

Srgq. n
:“s\,‘..

”a!

.he 7‘
introvers.
:: . I
mix. .Gts‘loxa
V.

 

 

—:——‘

Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka (1970) also reviewed the

eight second-stratum factors which presently have been iden—

tified in studies with the 16PF. Four of these second-

stratum factors seemed to have particular relevance to the
issues being examined in the present study, and for that

reason these factors were included in the ancillary analysis

of data. Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka (1970) wrote that "the

second—stratum factors may be viewed as broader influences

or organizers contributing to the primaries and accounting

for their being correlated One gets a more complete
picture by knowing the scores on the second order, in addi—

tion to those on the primaries. For this information helps

to show how the primaries are organized within a particular

person" (pp. 112—113).

The Invia vs. Exvia second-stratum factor examines

the introversion vs. extroversion dimension. Cattell, Eber,

and Tatsuoka (1970) wrote that the factor provided a measure

of social inhibition rather than a measure of general inhi—

The second—stratum factor of Adjustment vs. Anxiety
lack of

bition.
Drovides a measure of broadly—based adjustment vs.

djustment and its ensuing anxiety. Pathemia vs. Cortertia

s a second—stratum factor which measures cortical alert-
and a readiness to handle problems at

The

ess, cheerfulness,

Cognitive, objective level on the Cortertia pole.
ithemia pole is reflected by frustration, depression,

mdiness, and a tendency to respond to problems in

 

 

-..c._...
-a...“

..........

"""" -‘35
“-*‘:~: ....... .
--‘~ ‘7‘” an
..:::, :VV—-::

4‘ ‘

32---.
..: 3111-: -.
1‘.” “:~:- «2
-_.t.. 7“"‘ubc
‘- : 7 t: A;
..... r--‘_| H
7: ‘ 3 . ~_
““‘"—~—-_.. .:
~~R~. -

4,‘ -
mun“; .- )n.
tn...” I r. ‘

u... n_5 ~CC

.M H‘V“l\~“

‘u ‘v
fc~“’\vu-fli

.._I.

‘:‘.‘Cn

s;;. .
LIJGQ whic

the div

h pi
orce ex;
my was not c
Dents 0f the A

in .
thlS Study,

So“ .

ne prellminer
is

a measure of

__44

 

—_fi ‘

67

affective ways rather than cognitive ways. The last second—

stratum factor examined in the present study was that of

Subduedness vs. Independence. Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka

(1970) wrote that the Independence pole reflected not only

a perceptual independence, but a general, temperamental

independence. The Subduedness pole reflected submissive—

ness, acquiescence, and passivity.
Reliability coefficients were not determined for

the sample in the present study. This course of action was

taken because of the extensive efforts to establish the

reliability of the 16PF by the Institute for Personality

and Ability Testing (IPAT). Dr. David Madsen, a research

consultant with IPAT, stated that the sample for the present

study was too small to obtain reliability estimates with

any particular merit or meaning (Madsen, personal communi—

cation, November 1978).

Adjustment to Divorce Scale. The Adjustment to

Divorce Scale was constructed by this researcher for use in
the present study because no existing instrument was iden—

:ified which provided a measure of general adjustment to

he divorce experience. The focus and intent of the present

tudy was not one of a comprehensive investigation of the

erits of the Adjustment to Divorce Scale. Its inclusion

3 this study, however, provided the opportunity to obtain

)me preliminary impressions of its reliability and validity

Ia measure of adjustment to divorce.

 

 

68

The Adjustment to Divorce Scale was constructed as

a 37-item Likert instrument (Appendix J). Subjects were

asked to assess their behavior and feelings in many different

Questions contained in the scale

 

contexts of their lives.
addressed areas such as eating and sleeping habits, personal

hygiene and maintenance of living quarters, involvement with
one's children, involvement with one's former spouse,

functioning in the employment setting, use of and involve—

 

ment with friends, and feelings regarding being a single

person. The questions were written in the present tense,
thus reinforcing an assessment of themselves as they were

currently functioning. The selection of the questions that

made up the scale was based on the observations of previous

researchers regarding the ways in which divorce—related
trauma was manifested in people's lives. The instrument

was designed to be a reasonably short measure of the overall

divorce adjustment process. An internal consistency reli—

ability coefficient of .89 was obtained for the sample in
this study.

Procedures

leneral Overview
The decision to conduct this study in a field set—

ing placed some limitations on the scope of the investi—

ation, and understandably resulted in myriad real—life

 

 

 

_ _ __....._-

 

 

Rfir‘QV‘N rn- c
'vU..bJ~ooV ooV-»
'

fiOFfiO~Rj ”A!
Durand. cc.
5

A. '
_‘v\~‘.. I
~ Sun-
bot ‘ h. -
: --‘“\rno- \l
b

u..‘“ ‘
'Qb'. vzhafl~ A

u .u..\‘\’_“ .—.‘

\A.

\A_“_“\
“Hb-\,- :v“‘n<
v

‘Vu~‘
s

 

 

69

contingencies throughout the course of the study. The

potential benefits, however, in terms of understanding the
divorce adjustment process as it was occurring, observing
the effects of a therapeutic intervention during the initial
stages of the divorce experience, and the potential for
generalizing the results and observations, certainly justi-
fied selecting such a methodology.

The design of the present study was that of a field
experiment utilizing a pretest—posttest control group model
with random assignment of subjects to the experimental and
control groups. Random assignment of subjects to the two
clinicians involved in the study also occurred. Within the
random assignment of subjects, an equal distribution of
males and females between groups was maintained.

The time~limited psychotherapy program, the effects
of which the present study sought to examine, was made
available through the Psychological Evaluation and Treatment

Center, Inc. This facility was a private clinic in Lansing,

Michigan with which the researcher and the two clinicians

involved in the project were associated. The subjects in

:he study each originally sought participation in the coun-
eling program in order to resolve a stressful real life

roblem. Thus, they had dual roles as both subjects and

lients. For that reason issues regarding client confiden—

Lality, client autonomy, and the primacy of the therapeutic

 

 

 

Y‘.“.F'cp u '-
.‘C-§»-v..u.....u

. .
Rh- 6 0"- o
65:-.. “‘9‘. -
V- Q
~\ N
.uu Q;
~
.nA “V’QAG‘
:— .— h‘
vac» h-\rub~h’
.
‘ 0
2“" 3 A -—..‘
_ “ “ \t ----- y
.
| “‘ ’"z‘v —
-" bwov-‘ v
. i
’3~:“ -““Y
-gb‘ .—

“-1.-

.
"IA

‘n- I-v “"v‘o-q

50-5-3 v»...a

.
-HA .5
1' “n: I'IC
-Q
" N
s A - ‘
"y y» V‘"

\ ‘ ‘-
“\ “a: 'Q N-
\-\..\V c
-
“‘v ‘
\y‘ A. 'V

5‘»- “red“
a My
‘

 
 

Whfifi ’

7O

relationship were closely monitored. These issues will be
dealt with in greater detail in a later section.

As subjects entered the study they were administered
the pretest, assigned to the experimental or control group
and a clinician, and informed of their first appointment
with their therapist. The experimental group subjects
began their six weekly sessions the same week as the pretest
administrations, while the control group subjects had no
further contact until six weeks after the pretest. The
experimental group subjects were administered the posttest

during the week of, but following, the sixth clinical session.
The control group subjects were administered the posttest

six weeks after the administration of the pretest. The
control group subjects were then provided the therapy they

had requested six weeks previously.

Procuring Subjects
The intent of the study was to examine the effects
Of time—limited psychotherapy on the adjustment processes of

divorcing persons. Thus, a program was developed that pro—

vided access to a very large percentage of all divorcing
?eOple in Ingham County. Mr. James Pocock, the head of the
Tiend of the Court, Ingham County, agreed to have his two
re-investigation staff members distribute a brochure
Appendix K) describing the counseling program and concurrent

asearch project being conducted by this researcher. Both

lrties of all divorce actions initiated in Ingham County

 

. . . . o - .
In "F‘f‘v‘ ~r~
.4. “luovtt Via--1

'— w.- -
:OflAQ'fi ‘c

nun-kl-.. vow-v..- .‘
O.
F ‘L vn-;=
o..‘u] " a...

""' ‘--An¢-.Ap
.- Q ~
'nlb uabVo-v-wn.

VA-" “H~ u.-
H.
.Eyd‘w-. \- -..
o
v
n -h
-IO b.
.
..:- "“"‘ “VA
“a. ‘ K

Wu his 2e
‘R‘A ‘ .
y'- y.’,‘. w “
.»u\..u--zac;'
‘
u'“ ;~
‘ n A
». » _“uve.‘
“\‘-
L.‘ “H -
‘b-b\‘..~s \" ’b‘n
“‘ “ u
‘1
I"
1 a
-'\"“\ \p ‘
uyv..( I.]Ch\ ~Q
‘ ‘unUM
‘i‘
.3 -
‘. “as fiew‘. +‘
s ‘L L?

 
 

 

—i—

71

in which children are involved are required to have one
appointment with a member of the pre~investigation staff.

Thus, it was expected that the project would be brought to

the attention of approximately 200 people a month, thus

resulting in a reasonably rapid procurement of subjects.

In the original design of the study it was decided

that this procedure involving the Friend of the Court would

be the only community resource used to make contact with

those people currently involved in the divorce process. It

was recognized that only divorcing people who had children
would thus be involved in the project, thereby limiting the

generalizability of the results. Because divorcing people

with children made up such a large majority of all divorcing

persons in Ingham County, 77% (Ingham County Clerk's Office,

Mason, Michigan, personal communication, August 18, 1977),
it was felt that this limitation was acceptable, particu—
larly in the face of the tremendous complexities involved
in gaining support of and participation in the project by
community agencies. Additionally, it was thought that
anolving other community resources would result in an
mnecessary duplication of contact with the same population
f individuals.

The project was initiated on January 23, 1978, and
foceeded in the manner just described until October, 1978,

:which time the researcher and his committee decided that

would be advisable to attempt to involve other community

 

———+

resources in distributing the brochures. This decision was

made following close observation of the project during the

first seven months. During that period of time approximately

1,400 brochures were distributed by Friend of the Court, out
of which 15 peOple responded and became involved in the pro—
and

gram. This response rate (1%) seemed unacceptably low,

it was felt that it would result in an extremely prolonged

period of time required to gain the necessary number of
subjects. (A more detailed discussion of the possible
factors involved in this low response rate will be provided

in a later section.) For that reason, contact was made with
a number of community resources which had contact with people
at some point shortly after a divorce action was initiated.
This decision was made after concluding that increasing the
number of community resources involved in the project would

not in any way adversely affect the intent or design of the

study. To the contrary, it was anticipated that by broaden-

ing the base of potential referral sources, it would be
Dssible to make the program available to childless divorc-
ng people, thus increasing the probability that the sample
ould approximate more closely the characteristics of the
qulation of divorcing people in Ingham County.

Surprisingly, none of the anticipated reservations
d political problems originally experienced in setting up
6 project with Friend of the Court came to pass in the

ntacts with Legal Aid, the Domestic Assault Program through

 

‘u ‘ :fi;;‘
H
LOXY-'
Q“ Q '
COHEL‘
V s

 

73

the Department of Social Services, the Counseling Center

of Lansing Community College, the Women's Resource Center,

or Parents Without Partners. The staff members of each of
these organizations had come to some degree of awareness of
the program, and were eager to participate in distributing
brochures to their clients. They were asked to present the
brochures and describe the counseling program in the same
manner, and with the same safeguards and limitations, as

the Friend of the Court staff. Thus, beginning in the end

of October, 1978, these additional community organizations
became resources for obtaining subjects for the project.
Their addition to the project, coupled with Friend of the
Court's continued active involvement, resulted in an accele—
ration of subjects entering the project. With this increased
lsubject response the desired sample of at least 40 people

was obtained by the end of January, 1979, 12 months following

the inception of the project.

Issues Regarding Research in a

 

Clinical Setting

A chronic problem experienced by researchers in the
field setting is the inability to control all of the factors
ffecting the project and the subjects. This certainly held

rue in the present study. The range of experiences, com—

 

ications, and factors to be dealt with was considerable.
me people reconciled with their spouses. Thus, they were

opped from the study but continued in therapy. Several

 

 

.
O

I. a
”Sb-'- 3 F" a

vI~JU--v SMJ'HU
. .

out! AA.- ’-
F 0" “on. .—
U-o-vb UVVV-U~

I

9

.8 h- s.- A o
.—

05 Her ‘I v-)
..........

a-
"b 5v-“
,
p. -

,_ 0-":o on
."5 b as. .
Ln ‘ ’ 0

V‘QA .

b ‘_ :3-..
u»..,.,.., h...“
"OQ-— ~g.-fl*-
--- --»-t-:
.
50‘ . .

“. ‘FA “—
v." n—

5 y b-

n
e.. '

. a
-: ‘~. “~ *N

9-9-

- -¢.\a -V

P‘rOject Was

researcher . s

at 1‘ .
a‘l 1:13.165

 

 

 

74

people moved or lost contact for undetermined reasons. Two
other people took the pretest, and later expressed a desire
to be involved in the therapy, but asked to be dropped from
the study. One of these two individuals indicated that she
felt that the test battery focused too much on issues about
herself, and that her purpose in life was to be concerned
with matters of religion. The other individual simply felt
that the time required to complete the test battery was too
fatiguing for her to go through again. The final sample
for the study was made up of only those people who volun—
tarily participated in the entire project through the com-

pletion of the posttest. Other individuals were eliminated

 

as subjects, but not as clients, whenever intervening
factors warranted that action.

Another important factor in the completion of this
project was the co-status of client/subject. It was this
:esearcher's judgment that the role of client took prece-
lence over that of subject, and this was rigorously enforced
t all times. In fact, this resulted in several secondary,
ut very interesting, avenues of data collection being
liminated from the project. These discarded methods of
ata collection were the administration of the test battery
Lx weeks following the posttest, a written summary by the
-inicians regarding the course of therapy for each of
eir clients, and mandatory termination of therapy at the

d of six sessions.

 

 

75

An extremely surprising development in the course
of the study was the near—unanimity with which both experi-
mental and control subjects requested not to be involved in
the third testing session. Of the 42 subjects in the sample,
only six completed the test battery three times. For most
of the rest of the experimental subjects the primary reason
for not completing the test battery a third time was that
they were six weeks removed from any involvement in treat-
ment or the study, and their focus, energy, and investment
were channeled elsewhere. The control group subjects also
very frequently indicated that completing the test battery
twice was enough. This was in spite of the fact that many
people expressed the feeling that taking the tests had made
them focus on themselves in new and interesting ways.
There is no question that the test battery administered to
each of the subjects was rigorous, both physically and
mentally. From the experience in this study it might be
appropriate to conclude that follow—up contact with subjects
who have been involved in an intense and concentrated expe—
rience needs to be shorter and less demanding on them than
attempted in this study. Certainly the chances of people
participating in a time—consuming and demanding experience
diminish as their investment in the experience is diminished
OVer time.

The completion of a written summary by the clini-

ians about each of their clients also had been seen as a

. I

‘ “‘ .FAQV
‘fi‘ ‘ u
“.1“? ......

. Y‘flnq
"" O-‘u-u-n
..... 5 fiber...-
Q :“’ "flu-b.
‘chu y» --

'fi‘.
h A 'A
“M: reza
.
\
~ “\n~ ' A
us&:‘ “.I\
0
{\Y“ ‘V
V~Au

 

   

 

 

I r
76

source of additional, although more subjective, data. The
manner in which this might be done went through several
revisions because of both clinician and client discomfort
with the proposed formats. Finally it was decided that the
clinicians would not write any additional summary evaluation
about their subjects. Rather, each clinician reviewed his
case notes with the researcher and provided an oral summary
to the researcher. This was done in order to maximize
client confidentiality, and to maintain the clarity regard—
ing the Clinicians' authority and power to safeguard their
Clients' rights—-an issue raised by two client/subjects early
in the course of the study. A summary of the Clinicians'
reviews regarding the subjects' progress is presented in
Appendix Q.

Originally, the intent had been to conclude the
herapeutic relationship after the sixth session. It was
hought that this would result in greater consistency in
he clinical process at the time of the posttest. In the
ctual course of the study, however, it was decided that
t was clinically inappropriate in certain Circumstances to
erminate a client. Very early in the study it also became
parent to the researcher that it was more appropriate to
dicate to the subjects that the counseling program would

approximately six weeks long, but that the decision
garding when to terminate would be the subject's and his/
er clinician. For these reasons the study was conducted
ch that the subjects entered the counseling program fully

are that they were involved in a short-term experience of

 

w

«..-.=- =

 

..

u;
"raw.
I’F'v L-._

in;

"“10“ 3....-.
”L- ..

.....

the Court (‘1
350°Cth E360:
badgering.

ever, this 1

counseling 2

partially a:
Judge Wan—GI
two pre‘inm
the broom“
packet of 01
indicate the
which that :

could no t b<

 

 

77

approximately six weeks, but that the actual time of termi—
nation would be mutually determined by the client and his/
her clinician. In reality, only three subjects continued

in therapy beyond the sixth session. The subjective observa—
tions of the researcher and the clinicians, however, were
that having some say as to when their clinical involvement
would end was important to the client/subjects.

The manner in which this short—term counseling pro-
gram and research project was made known to the population
of divorcing persons in Ingham County also was seriously
affected by constraints placed on the project by the involved
parties. Circuit Judge Warren detailed the conditions
under which contact could be made with clients of Friend of
the Court (Appendix L). These conditions were designed to
protect people from harassment, coercion, deception, and
badgering. In addition to protecting the individuals, how—
ver, this researcher thinks that the manner in which the
ounseling program was able to be presented to individuals
artially accounted for the 1% response rate. Based on
udge Warren's stipulations, both written and verbal, the
wo pre-investigation staff members were allowed to hand
he brochure to the individuals, along with a sizable
acket of other Friend of the Court literature, and to
dicate that the brochure described a counseling program
ich that individual might want to consider. The brochure

Uld not be highlighted, nor could the individuals be

 

 

. .'—"’—— r—
--:=!"‘

‘ | V .....
..........
_--§ _‘v

.. :~~~ "‘3
a..- H::.:‘ V
. N. en“-
:.....\ 1“”:
l a” "\\a"
yu--\-~‘ ”
k M.” r“ .«
L~VNA‘ : 5“
a'nAV‘ nfi"~
theta—e “t:
~;-.«- 4 ~' “
..:.eu dis“
53. ‘n

.. e.

was one p05
iescription
insurance 'c
any respons
Of the Cour
researcher
Counseling
Clinicians
The
aPY for the

44

 

 

78

urged to consider participating in the program. Addi—
tionally, no follow—up contact with the individuals who had
been given the brochures was allowed. Thus, although it
was known that the brochures were being placed in the hands
of many individuals, there was no way of determining how

many people actually examined the brochure.

Brochure

The brochure used in this study was conceived of
and designed by this researcher specifically for the present
study (Appendix K). The short—term counseling program was
called "New Directions," and an attempt was made in the
brochure to summarize the many different feelings and
experiences that divorcing people might have. It was sug—

gested that the trauma a person might be experiencing did

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
 
    

not have to be a permanent condition, and that counseling
was one possible way of coping with that trauma. A brief
description of the fee structure and the availability of
insurance billing was provided, followed by a disclaimer of
any responsibility or liability on the part of the Friend

f the Court. Finally, the name and phone number of the
esearcher were provided so that anyone interested in this

ounseling program could make contact whenever he/she desired.
linicians
The clinicians who conducted the time—limited ther—

py for the present study were experienced and clinically

 

 

 

 

79

skilled. Their resumes can be found in Appendix M. Both
clinicians were staff members at the clinic where the
clinical services were provided. As can be seen by review—
ing their resumes, both men had extensive educational train—
ing and clinical experience prior to this study, and both
men were certified by the State of Michigan well before the
study was started. Additionally, and of great importance,
both clinicians had a theoretical orientation and thera—
peutic style consistent with that of the present study.

A vitally important feature of this study for the
researcher was to have clinically experienced and talented
people conducting the therapy. This was important because
the researcher wanted to keep the focus of the study on the
possible effects of a therapeutic involvement at a critical
time in divorcing persons' lives. The researcher wanted to
avoid, as much as possible, having the focus of the study
blurred by concerns with whether or not the clinicians were
doing what they purported to be doing.

Selecting the clinicians proved to be a major prob—
em in getting the study started. The many problems
ncountered in finding two clinicians for the study were
esolved when one of the clinicians joined the clinic where
he therapy was conducted. Prior to his arrival, however,
t was proving to be extremely difficult to find a way to
esolve issues such as clinician qualifications, clinician

'llingness, fees, liability problems, program identity,

 

8O

stable and consistent clinical settings for the two clini-
cians, and theoretical and therapeutic compatibility with
the study.

Both clinicians agreed to serve as the clinicians
in the study after comprehensive discussions with the
researcher regarding many of the above—mentioned issues.
In addition to speaking at length with both men, the
researcher also met with their clinical and professional
supervisor. This was done with the approval of the clini—
cians and was done in order to get as comprehensive and
intimate an evaluation as possible of the level of sophis—
tication, complexity, and effectiveness of their thera-
peutic skills. Their clinical supervisor very strongly
praised the clinical knowledge and clinical skills of both
men, and only then were both men finally selected to serve
as the clinicians in the study.

The preparation of the clinicians for conducting
the time-limited therapy used in the study consisted of a
series of joint discussions with both men. Both clinicians
ere experienced in the use of time—limited therapy, and
s mentioned earlier, both clinicians had a theoretical
rientation and therapeutic style compatible with those
resented in Chapter II. The general sequence of the thera-
eutic process, within the context of self-concept theory,
as discussed, but both clinicians were urged to conduct

eir therapy sessions in their own particular styles, and

 

 

81

in ways to best serve the needs of each client. The clini—
cians were made aware that the instruments used in the study
were generally concerned with the self—concept, but they
were not advised as to what the specific instruments were,
or the specific aspects of the self-concept that were to be
observed.

It also was decided during the preparatory discus-
sions that each clinician would manage his involvements
with the client/subjects himself, and only involve the
researcher when it seemed that the intent of the study was
being violated. Thus, issues such as isolated missed
appointments, phone calls, possible emergencies, etc. were
routinely resolved by the clinicians. It was agreed that
if circumstances did develop with certain clients that
ruled them out as viable subjects for the study, those
people would nevertheless continue to be involved in therapy

5 long as was appropriate.

nitial Contacts with Subjects

All of the subjects involved in the study had their
nitial contact with the researcher. This initial contact
as by phone. During this initial conversation the usual
equence was as follows: introductions were made; the
ient/subject related personal factors which had led to
1e decision to seek assistance with his/her adjustment pro—
ass; the researcher clearly restated that a study was being

>nducted in conjunction with the counseling program which

 

 

‘ .
' ’q ‘ -
1'55 10 5.3--.

a Q
EEK".- E'n'E'C - 1

avoar n~. '-
~ .4
wouuv--‘ v,

-
- . “'0.-
.' 9‘5“!"
m. uwyv- I

-.

‘n Q ~ _
.—\ -rV~F-V._
“up “-ou..u‘
..
A
I“ A“ ‘
. . . a ,.
H..- V‘.» ‘-
o. ‘ .
a- fit-
” x .2: “
5.“. h‘.- u-
.
I...‘ an
\ ~ a. 2--
~.~ “V‘: not:

argue. ‘
a»-g~‘ fl
.‘ c.

\ .
“:‘H \F -‘
5‘5.ng - b

i. ;i I~.

82

was totally voluntary on the subject's part; the researcher

reviewed issues of confidentiality, fees, and the general
parameters of the counseling experience th

entering; miscellaneous questions or concerns were discussed;

Pretest and Random Assignment
SEE—EEBEE—77777777777777

When the subject arrived for the pretest, the
researcher again reviewed the voluntary nature of the sub—
ject's participation in the study, specifying that the sub—
ject had the authority to terminate participation in either
the counseling or the study at any time. Issues of con—
fidentiality and general client/subject rights also were
TeViewed. The researcher notified each subject that he/she

ad an equal chance of being asked to wait six weeks before

i
E/She began the counseling program. Three individual indi— ‘
ated that they felt they could not wait that long, and

huS were eliminated as subjects, and referred to a clini—

ian for therapy. A short time was taken establishing

lpport and then the instructions for the pretest were

 

Tw'ovit:

-aobv-\rw v

‘ “A
A“ a”
V- it. -g.u~‘
. '
" F“ A— A0.

-="" N:~r«
unvauv VI-»- a
‘ D
-A
; -.,:._ -
b-.~, ---~- :
--
«so.
.....
‘v-
u-g_~’ I:
' . - we.

fly. .: ‘ ‘
-t..-vne‘ 2‘.

h “A:
“:‘:“l¢\l
h.‘ I
\ "\ n.‘* '
““tu was
“.25A1

The

 

83
reviewed. The pretest was then completed by the subject,
with this process usually requiring about two hours.
Interestingly, no potential subjects were eliminated based

on an inability to read the material. Following the com-

pletion of the pretest, the subject was given an appoint—

ment card with the name Of his/her clinician and the time of

the first appointment.

If the subject had been assigned to the control

group, the appointment card indicated that he/she would be

seeing the researcher in six weeks, for the posttest,

followed by the appointment time with the clinician.

The random assignment of subjects to groups was done
by flipping a coin to determine the group to which the first

subject was assigned. Each subject thereafter was alter—

iately assigned to the control and experimental groups.

8 men entered the program, they too were randomly alter-
ately assigned to the control and experimental groups.

be same procedure was followed in assigning subjects to

1e two clinicians. At the time the first subject entered
is experimental and control groups a coin was flipped to
ttermine the clinician who would be assigned to that sub—
Ct. Thereafter, the clinicians were alternately assigned

subjects within each of the groups.

arapeutic Process
.i________________

The experimental group subjects began the time—

dted therapy the same week as, but following, the pretest-

 

 

R“!- one?!
~CVS- v n»-..
4
.

. . .-
"..O '2‘. ‘
- |v- bu -

. - ‘
*FA Cast-q- A
boat: -k-..4u—u

‘u‘

0-.-
A“: .-
........ -‘
.
Q.‘ A " a
—
h-‘b U ..... V-
I
V: 2‘ “he”
...... U..~_.-
‘ I
v: :- “at”
‘v‘ub-b ......
‘
:“N Ififiay—Q-
nun “-A\A\_- v »<

 

 

84

The control group subjects had no further contact for six

weeks, at which time they completed the posttest, and then

began therapy with their clinician. All subjects were

involved in an individual, time—limited therapy based on

the formulations regarding self—concept theory and time—

limited therapy specified in Chapter II. No rigid set of

cians in the conduct of the therapeutic sessions. Rather,

the clinicians sought to establish a supportive, trusting

relationship with their clients. In the context of that

relationship the client and clinician then sought to explore
ind understand the specific crises and situations in that
ierson's life that seemed to traumatize that person. A

ocus was maintained on the individual's self—perceptions,
Dd how the events of the divorce process affected those
arceptions. As these links were established, and new self-
Brceptions emerged or were defined, the clinician took the
icus of therapy from a past tense, conflict—based mode to

e of beginning to define and manifest oneself as a single
dividual. For many people this was a difficult conceptual
3p because of the necessity of letting go of some long—
inding ways of functioning and perceiving oneself. As

E5e difficulties were experienced, the clinician, again

the context of the supportive, trusting relationship,

Ouraged the client to try desired new self—perceptions

behaviors.

 

 

«o‘v‘hf. “-
u--cvbd\!-

31’

‘~~~A- a-

HAV‘NA“- ‘ A“ =
l- _

~--~»~ b-\acn§-
‘ .

AV
tte
-\ ““ '-
h
s-»-t ". S-
“ “A ‘\~¢
_¥ :‘ 33~
.h: ““2“-
"K, --..~-~\'*
.
. .
\: --U\‘\‘.A “
55-- ~t‘k'e"
. -
‘
nfl‘ '\
-I“

;‘~q

Me in eac}

ninself,.-«’hers

standing and

individual ' s

sought assis

Process. Th
leorced per

exPerience.

 

 

—i—-

85

Lastly, the clinician worked to have the client
begin to think about his/her future and to begin to define
a direction for his/her life based on these clearer aware—
nesses of past events, their past impact on how that person
saw himself/herself, and the newly developing self—
perceptions and ways of functioning.

Certainly that was all a considerable task to com—
plete in six weeks, and no effort could be or was made to
10 so. Rather, the focus was to foster some awareness of
:he impact of the divorce experience on the individual's
;elf—perceptions, to gain greater awareness of how that
.ndividual would like to function and perceive himself/
erself, and to redefine a direction for his/her life.

The six-week therapeutic intervention came at a
'me in each subject's life when that person perceived
’mself/herself as needing and wanting assistance in under—
anding and coping with the divorce experience. Each
dividual's circumstances were unique, and each individual
ught assistance at different points in the adjustment

cess. The common bond, however, was that becoming a
orced person was a painful, confusing, and stressful
erience. The time—limited therapy sought to focus on

5 pain and confusion, to understand the impact of the
prce experience on the individual's self—perceptions, and
initiate the process of defining a positiVe direction

that person based on a realistic and improved awareness

 

 

~-|- f!
3 T C

a. uh-» v
~C‘fl’.-§h-“
:-“ ---vu.

~ I
..

:‘av—.“a '
“\vb»-.“-..» .

‘
“:Rn 2':
s»vs.,_\- ~ ‘
‘ ‘
.

n:v:.“ ‘ f
7““““-tu.,-\
.

"‘ 0.; ‘ .
5L Q‘V h

V‘- H.
.
.AA ~
w... \“fifi: A
v Uyy~y \—
.
\
PA
A.»
‘: t\:"9 ‘Y‘
‘ “i ~— :1

The
POStteS-t in.
tile SiXth C

tile CliniCig

 

 

86

of the circumstances of his/her life. The individual, as

a result of the short—term therapeutic intervention at a
significant time in his/her life, would then have a clearer
awareness of himself/herself and be able to continue a
healthier and more rapid adjustment to the divorce experi-
ence. The present study focused only on attempting to
determine whether or not such a time-limited therapeutic
intervention did, in fact, have the hypothesized effects in
people's lives. Observing the longer term impact of such a
therapeutic intervention on individuals' final adjustments
to their divorce experiences was not the intent of, or within
the scope of, this study. It certainly would prove to be a

relevant and timely follow-up study to the present study.

Posttesting of Subjects

The experimental subjects were administered the
osttest by the researcher the same week as, but following,
he sixth clinical session. This was coordinated between
he clinicians and the researcher. Each clinician discussed
he continuing voluntary nature of the study with each of
is clients, and based on each individual's agreement to
ke the posttest, the clinician then made an appointment
r the client to take the posttest.

The control group subjects were given an appointment
me for the posttest six weeks from the date of the pretest.
is appointment was set at the pretest, along with that

dividual's first clinical appointment. No further contact

 

 

p

; ..,_._._

too! _:-ace
M - s
C y'v L—v
the resea:
9:52:55;

ieex ‘ ,

Tine
between the
thoSe two F
aprOSPeCti
that the co
approximat e
informed th
c0”"Seling
and the Cli
thEy met Wi‘
actual couch
in therapy 1

were all ex]

 

——i—

87

took place with control subjects after the pretest until
the posttest appointment time. At the time of the posttest
the researcher again met with the subject, administered the
posttest, and confirmed the time of the first clinical
appointment. In several instances individuals did not keep
their appointment. When that happened the researcher called
the individual by phone to determine the reason for the
missed appointment. If the person simply had forgotten the
time of the appointment, but wanted to continue in the pro-
ject, then another appointment time was made for the same
week. If, however, the person had decided not to continue

in the project, then he/she was dropped from the study.

Termination of Therapy
The termination of the therapeutic relationship

etween the clinician and client was decided upon solely by
hose two peOple. At the time of the initial contacts with
prospective client/subject the researcher informed him/her
at the counseling experience was time—limited in nature,
proximately six weeks in length. Each person also was
formed that the precise time of the completion of the
unseling experience would be decided by himself/herself
d the clinician. The clinicians also restated this when
ey met with the clients for the first session. In the
ual conduct of the study only three subjects continued
therapy beyond the sixth session. These individuals

7e all experimental group subjects, and the decision to

 

" n v r!
I: \— .....

~~-rnlnev
I::::-.... _

—- n-x...
_..— \a
-.
-.:- ..
...,:_2 ..
L‘a--c....__..

’ “ :4 2--
...... a .. _
1.". the 3‘:
tier??? f0
.: ‘

“as dErive:
indi‘fidual‘
be im'Olve;
in"estnent
was dramat,
Evidean Si
The Clinic.
many 0f tin
group Subje
SESSiQnS‘

sessioHS‘

 

———¥

88

continue the therapeutic relationship was a joint one between
the clinician and client. The clinicians indicated to the
researcher during the oral summary of their therapeutic
experience with each client that the primary reason each
client continued in therapy beyond the sixth session was
that that person's former spouse was continuing to have
extremely disruptive contact with the client. Because of
that continued contact it seemed advisable to continue the
therapy in an effort to better understand the client's con-
tinued attachment, and the roles the former spouse played
in the client's self-perceptions. Two clients were in
therapy for a total of 10 sessions, while the third client
terminated after 12 sessions.

An important observation regarding client behavior
was derived from the control group subjects. Despite these
individuals' demonstrated continued interest and desire to
be involved in the counseling experience, their actual
investment in and participation in the counseling experience
was dramatically less than the experimental group subjects.
Evidence supporting this observation came from two sources.
The clinicians strongly made this observation regarding
many of the control group subjects, and many of the control
group subjects did not continue in the counseling for six
Sessions. Five of the 21 control subjects completed six
:essions. The other 16 subjects terminated counseling after

he third, fourth, or fifth sessions.

 

, \,.“"'.

Vi“-.. b
O

.. .
9:.0" v\
CI‘Uco .- H-I
' Q
"‘=* F 2' c.
'8‘- Hofi'-
o
—
“'1 F:
-‘v. o s—
o
.=.-: Na
.VV»§. “a:

\
~2’":n: i.”
‘5‘ “My »

.

«vi‘ -

«a
u--.-y:- 8
”fine" QHNA

ky-‘»..»t

‘

'1‘ “J“ g.
I“ “u‘ asuu
‘fiv
NV-

DeSiw
~en 0v
\EI

The

was a rando
was a true

SinCe Subje
and control

design.

a
lid aSSignm

 

—_—

89

No clearly defined set of reasons seems adequate to
explain this behavior on the part of the control subjects.
Each individual seemed to have a unique set of circumstances
that played a role in his/her decision to terminate counsel—
ing. The one obvious common characteristic among these sub-
jects was that they were all asked to wait for six weeks
before they began the counseling they had sought initially.
Perhaps the needs of divorcing people are such that a
critical element in the therapeutic value of a counseling
experience is the immediacy with which it is provided when
an individual does seek it. This area needs considerably
more attention if a comprehensive understanding of the needs

and characteristics of divorcing people is to be gained.

Research Design

     
  
   
 

esign Over Time

The experimental design over time:

s a randomized pretest—posttest control group design. It
s a true experimental design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963)
nce subjects were randomly assigned to the experimental
control groups. One treatment factor was used in the
sign. No blocking variables were used in the selection

1 assignment of subjects, but within the random assignment

 

 

' .. 4 +
o: sibec.

a

expe: 125::

"V;-:—- :-
but-.. ..
.:-... n:.-A
~43-“ -p.»
.“‘W a- q‘

‘l -—
“:-— a?
t..-._c‘ ‘_
‘ =:-~~_.-
“mu”;
t:~..,... A-
"‘~¢\... (,_

‘1:’:.L~. A
‘~ul..\ \.

{Cmeeli
for these
assignment
Whips. T
that 5W 0
control gr‘

ment .

An

JeCts_ Th

3
Willey] 1‘

persons is

______4

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIr—__________—_____777744

90

of subjects a balance by sexes was maintained between the

experimental and control groups.

Experimental Treatment

The single experimental factor examined in the
present study was a time—limited, individual, self—concept
based psychotherapy experience of six weeks duration. The
theoretical basis for this treatment model was presented in
Chapter II, and a description of the manner in which the

treatment was presented was contained in the procedures

section of Chapter III.

Ialidity Concerns

The true experimental nature of the present study
ontrols for the eight possible sources of internal invalidity
Campbell & Stanley, 1963). The key factor in controlling
or these sources of invalidity is the procedure of random
ssignment of subjects to the experimental and control
roups. This procedure greatly increases the confidence
iat any observed differences between the experimental and
ntrol groups can be attributed to the effects of treat—
nt.

An issue of greater importance in the present study
icerned the possible effects of the pretest on the sub—
:ts. This is an issue of external validity (Campbell &
inley, 1963). Obviously the population of divorcing

sons is not exposed to an extensive battery of

 

.
‘‘‘‘‘ a n:
~.\- cons. Vu

v -
FYA raps
........

n
:""‘2"": :
5'“- irv yv -

r
GGGGGGG .fi
‘ .-

“v-v a“. 5‘—

.

..

n‘: “VAR:
Cougy V‘VM‘
.

.- '
.":_ nA-- n
bug‘- v»::-~

s
‘
‘52-.“2V‘2A ._
”7‘” -\..\.4 ;_

--

“‘ “f‘O- .....
““‘ w» a:

‘ A.

C: N\‘

H-“‘b\’

¢
Hy. . .
L’Hs‘t‘. .03 77".
Vcb» 5“

 

91

psychological measurements. Thus, the sample is different

from the population on at least this one dimension, limit-
ing the generalizability of the results on purely logical

grounds. An attempt was made in this study to determine if

subjects shaped their responses on the posttests in an
attempt to appear better or worse than on the pretests.

This procedure also made it possible to monitor more closely

the possible cueing effects on the experimental subjects

compared to the control subjects. Although this procedure

did not satisfactorily eliminate this concern with external

validity, it did provide additional data with which to

observe the effects of testing.

Another possible concern with the external validity,

the generalizability of the present study, was with the

selection of the sample. Subjects for the study were those

individuals who voluntarily sought participation in a coun—
seling experience to facilitate their adjustments to the

iivorce experience. Thus, the sample was different from

:he pOpulation of divorcing persons in general on this

imension. It would seem logical to assume that the sample

as different in life—circumstances and/or self—perceptual

ays from the pOpulation of divorcing persons. Factors

iat are presently impossible to specify led certain people
> seek therapeutic assistance, and certain other people

t to seek it. The results of the present study, then,

propriately should be generalized to that sub—pOpulation

:s'C'clo-
r': "e
:: :Ee ;
::-;:is

"-A~-~

.. A _ \
2.... ct-..

.--._..- -,
L... -- -
‘1... “vfla;
...-: he...

‘N—“T-“Q” .
nun»..- y“ .

A- ~—
-* .._ a:
':‘ M...
‘h--u ~\,
A .,. 5‘.
O~St-.e L.

individUal
Selim; 6X;
5iVQrCe ex
the Popula

dimensiOn .

that are n

to SEek th

not to See

apprOpI-iat

 

9l

psychological measurements. Thus, the sample is different

from the population on at least this one dimension, limit—

ing the generalizability of the results on purely logical

grounds. An attempt was made in this study to determine if

subjects shaped their responses on the posttests in an
attempt to appear better or worse than on the pretests.
This procedure also made it possible to monitor more closely

the possible cueing effects on the eXperimental subjects

compared to the control subjects. Although this procedure

did not satisfactorily eliminate this concern with external

validity, it did provide additional data with which to

observe the effects of testing.

Another possible concern with the external validity,

the generalizability of the present study, was with the

selection of the sample. Subjects for the study were those

individuals who voluntarily sought participation in a coun—

seling experience to facilitate their adjustments to the

divorce experience. Thus, the sample was different from

the population of divorcing persons in general on this

iimension. It would seem logical to assume that the sample

vas different in life—circumstances and/or self-perceptual

Jays from the population of divorcing persons. Factors

Lhat are presently impossible to specify led certain people

0 seek therapeutic assistance, and certain other people

Ct to seek it. The results of the present study, then,

ppropriately should be generalized to that sub-population

 

—T———

92

of divorcing persons which seeks some type of assistance

with their adjustments to the divorce experience.
A final possible source of external invalidity,
would seem to be of minimal concern

reactive arrangements,

in the present study. The study was conducted in the field

setting, and except for the pretest and posttest experiences,

the arrangements for the therapeutic experience were in no

May contrived or artificial.

iesign Over Measures
The study employed a repeated measures design with

ultiple dependent measures. The design is illustrated in

igure 3.1.
The dependent variables were:

Self-esteem.-—Measured by Rosenberg's Self—Esteem
Scale. The scale is reproduced in Appendix B.
2. Self as a socially interacting being.——Measured by
Watson and Friend's Social Avoidance and Distress
Scale. The scale is reproduced in Appendix C.
Self as accepting of and acceptable to others.——
Measured by Fey's Acceptance of Others Scale.
The scale is reproduced in Appendix D.

4. Self as having meaning and purpose in life.——
Measured by Good and Good's Existential Anxiety
Scale. The scale is reproduced in Appendix E.
5. Self as manifested in typical life roles.—-Measured
by a Semantic Differential constructed for this
study. The instrument is reproduced in Appendix F.

Degree of anxiety present in subjects.——Measured
by Zuckerman's Anxiety Checklist. The checklist

is reproduced in Appendix G.

~vueucbi.

Jd9T

Terquexeggra ornuemas
SIPQS 'ATG on auemasnfpv
eIeos Karrrqexrseq 'oos
asIIxoeqo Anerxuv

sxeqqo go eoueqdeoov
ateos ssaxqsra a -pronv 'oos
areas Aqerxuv—Terquaasrxa

areas waeisa-jfas

Jd9I

Teriuazaggra arguemss
areas 'ATG on quawnsnfipv
areas Karrrqexrsea 'oos
qsrtxoaqo Aqerxuv

sxeqqo go eoueadeoov
91935 35913310 8 'pIOAv °oos
areas Kaerxuv—Ierqueasrxg

areas meeqsg-JTQS

93

 

 

Experimental

Group

Control

Group

42

.l.-—Design Over Measures.

Figure 3

 

 

 

(l)

H
t up
‘
vi.
~ ‘\
“it se I ‘-

 

I-iIL)

(I)

:u ()It.)

:nm

vim

 

 

94

7. Degree of distortion of responses by subjects.—-
Measured by Crowne and Marlowe's Social Desirability
Scale. The scale is reproduced in Appendix H.
General personality adjustment.—-Measured by
Cattell's 16PF. The instrument is reproduced in

Appendix I.

9. Overall adjustment to divorce.—-Measured by the
Adjustment to Divorce Scale, an instrument con-
structed by this researcher for the present study.
The instrument is reproduced in Appendix J.

Research Hypotheses Stated in Testable Form

The primary purpose of the present study was to

xamine the effects of time-limited, individual, self—

oncept based psychotherapy on the adjustment processes of

'vorcing individuals. Specifically, it was hypothesized

hat improvement of self—functioning in certain aspects of

ie self-concept would be associated with a good divorce

[justment process. These hypotheses may be stated as:

H1.
The ANOVA, using a measure of self-esteem as a
dependent variable, will show a pretest/posttest by
experimental/control interaction. The interaction
will take the form such that the experimental group
mean score will have moved in a more positive direc—
tion over time when compared to the control group over
time.

H2:
The ANOVA, using a measure of social avoidance and
distress as a dependent variable, will show a pretest/
posttest by experimental/control interaction. The
interaction will take the form such that the experi—
mental group mean score will have moved in a more
positive direction over time when compared to the

control group over time.

 

2'12

‘.
4'.
J
.
q
q
A
as w‘
‘n'. A
us fix
o
‘.-
.-‘
I---
”A-..
...CC...
rH 5;"
v 5-
7- .
a.,
'1
~
-
Q
“AAA
.
.
Finn...
bonbfl
:flv-{n
“9»-V
"n
‘1-
5...: b
“a.--
“A“-v
“V9.5-
..
h-
l"-
K
J
T
‘
.‘ a
'1
us a
'h
' I
b\ 9.\
n
v.
K.

menta
POSit
COntp

diVQr
Postt
inter

 

 

The ANOVA, using a measure of acceptance of others
as a dependent variable, will show a pretest/posttest

The interaction

by experimental/control interaction.
will take the form such that the experimental group

mean score will have moved in a more positive direction
over time when compared to the control group over time.

The ANOVA, using a measure of hopelessness and pur—
poselessness in life as a dependent variable, will

show a pretest/posttest by experimental/control inter—
The interaction will take the form such that

action.
the experimental group mean score will have moved in a
more positive direction over time when compared to the

control group over time.

The ANOVA, using a measure of assessment of roles
as a dependent variable, will show a pretest/posttest
by experimental/control interaction. The interaction
will take the form such that the experimental group
mean score will have moved in a more positive direction
over time when compared to the control group over time.

Additionally, it was hypothesized that treatment
fects would be observed in general personality adjustment

d overall adjustment to the divorce experience. These

potheses may be stated as:

H6.
The ANOVA, using a measure of general personality
adjustment as a dependent variable, will show a pretest/

posttest by experimental/control interaction. The
interaction will take the form such that the experi—
mental group mean score will have moved in a more
positive direction over time when compared to the

control group over time.

H7:
The ANOVA, using a measure of overall adjustment to
divorce as a dependent variable, will Show a pretest/
The

posttest by experimental/control interaction.
interaction will take the form such that the experimental

 

:H

(J)
O

F?)

will
80cia
eSSn

ll

lated

 

 

96

group mean score will have moved in a more positive
direction over time when compared to the control group

over time.
An hypothesis regarding anxiety during the divorce

experience was formulated because of the research evidence

that it was an important component in the adjustment process.

he hypothesis may be stated as:

The ANOVA, using a measure of anxiety as a dependent
variable, will show a pretest/posttest by experimental/
control interaction. The interaction will take the
form such that the experimental group mean score will
have moved in a more positive direction over time when

compared to the control group over time.

The second purpose of the present study was to
amine the possible relationships among the aspects of the

elf—concept, anxiety, general personality adjustment, and

ferall adjustment to divorce. Hypotheses formulated

zgarding these expected relationships are as follows:

H9:
The Pearson product—moment correlation coefficient
will show positive relationships among measures of
self~esteem, assessment of roles, acceptance of others,
general personality adjustment, and overall adjustment

to divorce.

H10:
The Pearson product—moment correlation coefficient
will show positive relationships among measures of
social avoidance and distress, hopelessness and purpose—

lessness in life, and anxiety.

H
accep-

ll‘
assessment of roles,
and

Measures of self-esteem,
tance of others, general personality adjustment,
overall adjustment to divorce will be inversely corre—
lated with measures of social avoidance and distress,

P09111530:
betii'een 0‘:
“MOSS ind
est, the t
Sidered St
than the t

Th
the method

than the g

 

of Covaria
(NOVA) .
of the Sta
Sensitive

than did a.

 

_____._4

 

 

97

hopelessness and purposelessness in life, and anxiety,
as shown by the Pearson product—moment correlation

coefficient.

Methods of Analysis

Tests of Hypotheses
Hypotheses 1 through 8 were tested using a two

(pretest/posttest) by two (experimental/control) repeated

measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures

i
on the pretest/posttest factor. The three assumptions 3
i

underlying this statistical procedure were judged to have

been met based on the design, random assignment, and equal

cell sizes. These assumptions are: (l) normality of the

population from which the sample is drawn; (2) independence

between observations; and (3) homogeneity of variance

across independent variables. The three F-ratios of inter—

zst, the two main effects and their interaction, were con—

idered statistically significant when found to be larger

han the tabled F—value for alpha = .05.

The 2 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA was selected as

1e method of analysis for the first eight hypotheses rather

an the gain score model, the t—test procedure, analysis

covariance (ANCOVA), or multivariate analysis of variance

ANOVA). This selection was based on the characteristics

the statistical model, which provided a more complex and
sitive examination of the data over groups and over time

n did any of the other models. This was particularly

 

. .
.
Fa“? ‘. A“ A3“
‘IV‘AB-b any»:

‘21.; w.
.ut'C‘ S

- .0 .-

‘fié‘ “A“-r
nv s. 'qu b-

L' ’
‘ fine A-
V—Vgay v-
-
&
"flfin “A A
~Itkagct v
~
*

‘tu‘

 

 

—i—.

98

true in the cases of the t-test procedure and the ANCOVA.
The gain score model was not used, as well, for the above-
mentioned reason. Additionally, this model has other limi—
tations in that there are possible ceiling effects, it does
not control for initial differences, and one of the assump—
tions of the model is perfect reliability of the instruments.
The MANOVA procedure was not considered appropriate
because of the small sample size and the number of dependent
measures involved. It should be noted that the scores on
the various dependent measures were not considered to be
independent. In fact, hypotheses 9, 10, and ll predict
relationships among these measures. In addition to the
inappropriateness of the MANOVA procedure because of the
;ample size and the number of dependent measures, the 2 x 2
epeated measures ANOVA was thought to be the best procedure
follow because of the opportunity it provided for an
sessment of the differential effects of treatment among
e various measures.

Hypotheses 9, lO, and ll investigated the relation—
ips among the aspects of the self—concept, general person—
ity adjustment, overall adjustment to divorce, and anxiety.
se hypotheses were tested using a Pearson product—moment
relation statistic. Correlations were considered sig-
icant if the resultant probability for each was less

n .01 (one—tailed).

 

 

 

'mcillar‘.
." A
_____.

' A
octane-
..

............
‘ ‘V"‘lr
r5265.-. c

and the 1:
Personal i
anXiety.
P
infomati
who had i
PEOple Wh
SamPle f0
between S
subjEcts ‘

ThuS’ an

 

99

Ancillary Analysis of Data

Considerable demographic and descriptive data were
obtained during the course of the study. These data were
gathered in order to understand the composition of the
sample, to allow some comparison of this sample with descrip-
tive data gathered in earlier studies, and lastly to make
preliminary observations about an issue regarded by other
researchers as important to the divorce adjustment process,
but one which had received very little attention. This
issue dealt with the resources used by divorcing persons
for support and assistance during the adjustment process.

The Pearson product-moment correlation statistic
was used to examine the relationships among the demographic
variables. This same statistical procedure was used to
examine the relationships among the demographic variables
ind the measures of the aspects of self-concept, general
iersonality adjustment, overall adjustment to divorce, and
nxiety.
‘ Previous research efforts have provided conflicting
nformation regarding the impact of divorce on individuals
no had initiated the divorce action compared to those
eople whose spouses had initiated the divorce action. The
.mple for the present study was almost evenly divided
tween subjects who had initiated the divorce action, and
bjects whose spouSes had initiated the divorce action.

IS, an ideal opportunity was provided for a detailed

 

 

n)
U)
(u

"R
\uynflafi
5v 5,

i
The appro

16PF data

 

fi

100

ramination of these two categories of individuals. Addi—
ionally this assessment of the two categories of individ-
315 was seen as important, because the random assignment
E subjects had not resulted in an even distribution of
iese subjects between the experimental and control groups.
1 assessment of initial differences on this dimension thus
:ovided important information regarding its possible role
; a covariate in the analysis of data.
The t—test procedure was used to determine whether

' not there were initial differences between these two
‘oups of subjects on the measures of the aspects of self—
ncept, general personality adjustment, overall adjustment
divorce, and anxiety. Differences were considered
atistically significant if the resultant t—values were
rger than the tabled t—value at alpha = .10 (two—tailed).
is alpha level was specified in order to guard against
iecting evidence of differences based on too stringent a
.terion for acceptance of such differences.

Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka (1970) reported that
earch projects had identified eight second—stratum
tors within the sixteen primary trait factors of the
F. Four of these seemed particularly relevant to the
les being examined in this study. For that reason these
ors were included in the ancillary analysis of data.
appropriate weights and constants were applied to the

data to derive the four seCOnd—stratum factors. The

 

 

o

I
)
9
)
1
l

U

i
'(1

F - .
¥ ...... \-
fie
'y“
u.
h
Q
Ca
UN,

 

 

101

x 2 repeated measures ANOVA procedure was used to observe
ie effects of treatment on these second-stratum factors
.thin the 16PF. The F—ratios were considered statistically
.gnificant when found to be larger than the tabled F-value
r alpha = .05. Lastly, Pearson product-moment correla—
ons were obtained for each of these four second—stratum
ctors and the measures of the aspects of self—concept,

neral personality adjustment, overall adjustment to

 

force, and anxiety. Correlations were considered signifi-

t if the resultant probability for each was less than

Fey (1955) included in his Acceptance of Others

la a short, five—item, measure of self—perceptions of
ng acceptable to others. He derived reliability coef-
ients for this short but separate measure. These data
a reported earlier in Chapter III. The five items which
a up this scale were attached, by Fey, as the last five
is in the Acceptance of Others Scale. His instrument
administered intact in this study and data were gathered
i this short measure. These data were analyzed in the
way as the first eight hypotheses. The 2 x 2 repeated
ares ANOVA was used to observe the effects of treatment
iis measure of self-perceptions of acceptability to

rs. The F-ratios were considered statistically signifi—
when found to be larger than the tabled F-value for

L = .05. Additionally the Pearson product-moment

 

nnrrcl " 5 ‘

vain»- oa'

.
An—A~,-“'

 

 

102

orrelation statistic was used to examine the relationships
etween this measure of acceptability to others, the other
easures of aspects of the self—concept, general personality
djustment, overall adjustment to divorce, anxiety, and the
emographic dimensions. Correlations were considered sig—
'ficant if the resultant probability for each was less than
1.
The final area of data analysis was concerned with
e subjects' reports of resources available and resources
ed by them. Subjects were asked to indicate which
sources they used for support and assistance during their
'ustment processes. Additionally, they were asked to
sntify which of those same resources they thought were
iilable to them for support and assistance. This was
ie in order to observe the differences, if any, between
. subjects' perceptions of available resources, and their
ual use of resources for support and assistance. The
n score for each of the ten resources was computed for
h category, resources available and resources used, for
l the pretest and the posttest. These mean scores were
1 rank ordered for each category for both the pretest and
posttest. Additionally, the t—test procedure was used
dentify initial differences between the pretest and
test means for the experimental group, and posttest
erences in the mean scores between the experimental and

01 groups. Differences were considered statistically

 

"'3:

it. “~- an
\\
noovvotl“

.
u“ 1
. . ~

«Lush

.v

 

 

103

significant if the resultant t—values were larger than the

tabled t—value at alpha = .10 (two tailed).

hissing Data

Forty—eight thousand six hundred pieces of data were
:ompiled in the course of this study. Of that number, 110
ieces of data were missing. Thus, only two—tenths of one

ercent of the data was missing. The missing data were

 

ealt with by computing the mean for each item and substi—
ting that mean score for the missing data. This procedure
5 not used with the Adjustment to Divorce Scale. The
ssing data for this instrument were the result of certain
:ems not being applicable to certain subjects, i.e., sub-
:cts with no children did not answer parent-child related
ems. For this instrument, the mean score for the entire

strument was computed for that subject, and that score

3 then substituted for the missing data.

 

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Results 0

f the Tests of the Hypotheses
_______________________________________

The results of the analysis of data are presented in

his chapter. Each of the hypotheses is restated, followed

y a presentation of the results obtained by testing the

ypOthesis. A presentation of the results of the ancillary

ialysis of data follows the main results section.

The effects of treatment on the self—concept related

Lriables, general personality adjustment, overall adjust-

=nt to divorce, and anxiety were assessed using a 2 (

st/posttest) by 2

pre—
(experimental/control) repeated measures

alysis of variance (ANOVA), treating pretest/posttest as

e repeated measures factor On each of the scores (hypoth—

as one through eight).

For each of these hypotheses it was hypothesized

It the treatment group would "exceed" the control group

inSidering all variables from their positive pole) over
e. Thus, it was expected that the ANOVAs would show an
erimental/control by pretest/posttest interaction, with
means falling in the expected direction. The results

each hypothesis are as follows:

104

 

Q ’
Dean; “Y
M-‘

v-9“-

5 the me

3’0 hes:

'(J
r‘?‘

Psychothi

anCe
beinc
Cont:
form
have
COmp;
time

H2 was 51
tiCal pr:
aSSociatl
resu1ts

main Eff

105

The ANOVA, using the
a measure of self-esteem,
by experimental/control in
will take the form such th
score will have moved in a
time when compared to the m
group over time.

Rosenberg Self—Esteem Scale as
will show a pretest/posttest
teraction. The interaction
at the experimental group mean

1 was supported based on the results of the ANOVA statis—

ical procedure performed. The group means, F values, and

ssociated probabilities are reported in Table 4.1. These

asults showed that there was a significant pretest/post-

est main effect, and a significant pretest/posttest by

perimental/control interaction effect. The interaction

fect was in the predicted direction, as seen by inspection

the mean scores. These results thus strongly support the

pothesis that time—limited, individual, self—concept based

{chotherapy facilitates improvement of self-esteem in
Iorcing individuals.

H2:

The ANOVA, using Watson and Friend's Social Avoids
ance and Distress Scale as a measure of self as a soc1al
being, will show a pretest/posttest by experimental/
Control interaction. The interaction will take the
form such that the experimental group mean score Will
have moved in a more positive direction over time when

compared to the mean score of the control group over
time.

was supported based on the results of the ANOVA statis—
11 procedure performed. The group means, F values, and
iCiated probabilities are reported in Table 4.2. These
,lts showed that there was a significant pretest/posttest

effect, and a significant pretest/posttest by

’1‘.

oAECCUmEIUWom 304 muomflhgm QHOUW
~_.._—_v :7... .“uu.—-; _ _..n.. :ao ~.v.~_ bu; ._—~.._:_~...VK~L.. Hfib Oiuzmwflvoz m mum MUHHWth. rcooumm
| _ _..u.. a..._. ..:—:.~:.-~— ~..:_n..~_ _ unmnmn.v.~i~«vAH\n_u “HOV Jmumvav 1H0“ <>fiv2< N0 \fluflvgtnmlloifiov QHQMUPU

 

 

106

      

 

.mo

no Hw>wa medaa am pm pceoauacmam.

 

mm.mm

es.om uwopuwom
om.m~

ma.mm ammumum

 

msouo Houucou
QDOHD HubcwEHHonm

mwuoom cwoz

 

 

mvn. mOH. r lllllllllllllllllllllllll
ow H boowmm can: HouchU\kusoEHuooxm
*HOO- . a
mm ma ow H cosponuoucH Honuc00\ambcoeflnomxm an umouumom\pmoboum
*HOO. . s
OH an ow a “cache cams pmmpumom\ummumna
m m .u.e

QUGMflHM> MO mmUHDOW

 

:Q-r ‘ ‘

.LL__I .ZLE.TLL§ .C ZLZCTCE C $3 QafiUw EWUHUWHQ UCQ UUCQUflO>< HWflUOW
3.1:L_Ll :21 232473 72.2: N leLSUCQ>2 LC UWOF MOM <>OZ< NO NMQEESWII-N-V QHQQE

 

 

 

107

   

 

.mo. mo Ho>mH cream am pm bemoawflsmflm«

 

o
om.mv mm.mv amoubm m

mm.mv

wwposm
mm.ms u

moose Houbcoo

gooew amusoefluomxm

  

monoom :cmz

 

mmo. mm.m oe.a boommm new: Hospsou\amucoefluomxm

some. mo.e oe.a coauomumucH Houucoo\amusmsaumdxm an ammunmom\umwhoum

some. mm.m ov.H uowwmm can: ummpuwom\bmoumum
m m .u.e

QOQMH .HMNV .HO wGOHDOW

 

ofipcwue mo omswmoz m mm mamom wwmuuwao can ooencao>< Hmaoom

. . . II. .V wHQNB
m.pcoflum can combmz moans N memorb0d>m mo umoe How <>oz< mo muceenm m

ii|l|Il|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-I-I-I-I-

 

can-'9 -o—n—

{U
(I)
n I

(D
>1
'(1

n

7'
"1 H (I) {D in

"1 ’5: ("J n)
O

(l‘ C) (I) (I

 

 

108

‘xperimental/control interaction. The interaction effect
as in the predicted direction, as seen by a review of the
ean scores. These results thus support the hypothesis
mat time-limited, individual, self—concept based psycho-
ierapy facilitates improvement of self—perceptions as a
icially interacting person in divorcing individuals.

H3:

The ANOVA, using Fey's Acceptance of Others scale
as a measure of others will show a pretest/posttest by
experimental/control interaction. The interaction will
take the form such that the experimental group mean
score will have moved in a more positive direction
over time when compared to the mean score of the con—
trol group over time.

was not supported based on the results of the ANOVA
atistical procedures performed. The group means, F values,
3 associated probabilities are reported in Table 4.3. The
sults showed that on the acceptance of others dimension,
Lre was a significant pretest/posttest main effect, a non—
nificant pretest/posttest by experimental/control inter-
ion, and a significant experimental/control main effect.
lack of a significant interaction effect, coupled with
inspection of the mean scores which revealed a less
atic movement toward increased acceptance of others by
control group subjects, made it impossible to attribute
experimental group change to the effects of treatment.

tionally, the significant experimental/control main

ct indicated that the experimental group initially was

 

frw asha— ¢f\ _—.\ nu.\rL-. firun\f\.\< hqrf.\.h huh *{Chlmaf\& f\LF\LU. £h¥$hh\ ULQII‘C kc
.Z__ .._...o.v< I... .73.. EC role a: -.CCE......CLL. LC ULErrnfluoz My mew OHQUW WHU£UO
.3 .79.... .A_.e.t.o< Z >..... T._._:: m n.....a....v£.;01\n: k0 uwaH. (HOW <>Oz< N0 \AHQFDEDWII-M-V mvHQMFH.

 

 

109

 

 

.mo

. mo Hw>oH wcmfl< am pm HQMOHMHEmme

 

as.mm uwmuumom
3.3

om.mm umocoum

 

msouw Houucoo

msouw HmpcoEflHomxm

    

womoom cum:

 

 

smmo. Nn.m oe.a poommm new: Houhc00\amucoeflummxm
wmo. vm.m ov.H coflbocuobcH Hospcoo\ampco8fluwmxm we unopumom\umououm

amoo. HN.OH ov.H woomwm CHMS pm®##m0m\#mw#mum
19. m no

moccfinm> mo moousom

 

.Amuoauo mo wocmumooo
mcflumooom mc waom co uoommm us

m Boa muowawom oHOUm aoflmv muocuo wo
wo moamumwoom m.>om moan: m mew

wfigmeB WC QHUWMQS 0 mm OHNUW MHMWSHHO
caboose mo bmoe now <>ozm o m

 

 

 

3 1 f I
._a

" $1) (I)
(1 g;

'(1 (.l- W
(I) (D

' (n

h r) “I
C) r:
’1

‘ "I
Lune
~v
VenCM

. ‘n

:1 “Sb 5

'3
- Pi“

mEas
a pr
The

mGnt
P051
SCOr

 

110

more accepting of others, thus further blurring any causal—

ity regarding the pretest/posttest main effect.

H4:

The ANOVA, using Good and Good's Existential Anxiety
Scale as a measure of self-perceptions of hOpelessness
and purposelessness, will show a pretest/posttest by
experimental/control interaction. The interaction will
take the form such that the experimental group mean
score will have moved in a more positive direction over

time when compared to the mean score of the control
group over time.

H4 was supported based on the results of the ANOVA statis—

tical procedures performed. The group means, F values, and

associated probabilities are reported in Table 4.4. These

results showed that there was a significant pretest/posttest

nain effect and a significant pretest/posttest by experi—

iental/control interaction. The interaction effect was in

:he predicted direction, which illustrated a considerable

eduction in existential anxiety as seen by reviewing the

ean scores in existential anxiety over time. These results

trongly support the hypothesis that time-limited,
a1,

individ—
self-concept based psychotherapy facilitates the reduc-

Lon of self-perceptions of hopelessness and purposelessness
l divorcing persons.

H5:

The ANOVA, using a semantic differential as a
measure of self—perceptions in life roles, will show
a pretest/posttest by experimental/control interaction.
The interaction will take the form sucg that the experi—

' re

mental group mean score Will have move in a mo
positive direction over time when compared to the mean
score of the control group over time.

_Cm.:l.:_XE 3C; :.LZ__LZ CLCCC £?_:V bum; 2w UTOQLDK UCQ 0&0: UCH>ME mm
L _..“H I: 7?. a .3 .21.: .31.»... ._C CLZTHGUE «1.. main. CfifluUmv. \AUOflXCAN .Hnwfiuwcmvumflvnmw
Z .12.: 1:: :23: :Z_?.: ? “mm"...vzntdlxw: the UWOPH. [Roma <>Oz< no.0 \nNflvEDmlliv-V mevapHi

 

 

111

.m0. wo Ho>oH M£QH¢ am pm pencewacmflmx

  

wm.am ma.hm #mmppmom

$5.0m va.om #mmpwmm

      

 

QSOHQ Honpeoo msouw Hopcofiflnomxm

 
 

mouoom cow:

 

 

mam. NH.H ov.H boommm new: HouhsOU\HmpeoEHHomxm
emooo.v vm.ma ov.a coflbomuobsH Houbsoo\awbcoeflummxm we umopumom\umoboum
amooo.v mn.vm ov.H boommm CHMZ pmwmumom\umwpwnm
m m .m.p oosmaum> mo moonsom
.Amuoflxe<

Hmflpeobwflxm 30H whomawom whoom cmflmv owed :fl omomssm can omom mcfl>mm mm
maom so bommmm ucofiucwue mo ousmwoz m we oawom xuoflxcm Hafiueoumflxm
m.pooo new @000 mean: v memosuommm mo uwwe Mom <>Oz< mo NAMEEDMII.V.V dance

 

bfigoiyu

1‘" “ no»

b‘u :\UC.
‘ .

I- . '

‘Gblt I.

 

112

I5 was not supported based on the results of the ANOVA

(tatistical procedures performed. The 2 x 2 repeated

easures ANOVA was performed on each of the 16 roles con—
ained in the Semantic Differential. The pretest/posttest
{ experimental/control interaction F—values and associated

:obabilities for all 16 roles are presented in Table 4.5.
complete presentation of group means, F—values,

and associ—
ed probabilities for the Semantic Differential i

S COD-

ined in Appendix N. Inspection of the pretest/posttest

experimental/control interaction F values contained in

ale 4.5, revealed that 11 of the 16 roles contained in

3

- Semantic Differential were significant. Furthermore,

imination of the mean scores presented in Appendix N,
wed that the interaction effects for each of these 11

es were in the predicted direction. The five role

egories which did not show a significant interaction

3 "employee," ”meeting expenses," ”how I was in the past

1 my former spouse," "host/hostess," and "sportsperson.”

iination of the experimental/control main effect F-

ies, and the group means contained in Appendix N showed

the experimental group had a more positive assessment

hemselves as a "host/hostess" at the pretest than the

fol group. Thus, this initial difference confounded

effect, even though the experimental grOUp mean score

ived by 7.86 while the control group mean score declined
6.

 

—\

Homema
NOW W1
Parent
Was Wi

SOCial

Meetin
\

 

113

Table 4.5.—-Summary of ANOVA Interactions for Test of
Hypothesis 5 Using the Semantic Differential
as a Measure of Treatment Effect on Assessment
of Self in Life Roles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/ F p

Control Interaction _
Role Categories:

Intellectually 11.85 .001*
Single Person 25.62 <.0005*
Goal Setter 9.30 .004*
Sexually 4.60 .038*
Spiritually 5.04 .030*
Employee 3.40 .072
Host/Hostess 2.88 .097
Sportsperson .13 .721
Friend 8.75 .005*
Disciplinarian 5.20 .028*
Homemaker 7.80 .008*
Now with Former Spouse 4.56 .039*
Parent 11.94 .001*
Was with Former Spouse ~86 ~351
Social situations 9.58 .004*

079

fleeting Expenses 3-25 -

*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

 

“5‘: - ‘IE
UUUUU -.

2"“f‘n c
‘bb-v ~

or
”V- I .‘\-
¢
a
‘52- +5”
\- i‘. 5“:

the role
tion of

was a no
Si(mific
action w.
IREntal g:
OVer tim:
998th t]
continui]
facilita1

evaantn

 

114

Examination of the F—values and group means also

evealed that there was a significant pretest/posttest main

ffect for the role category "meeting expenses." The mean
:ores indicated that the control group also moved in a
>sitive direction over time, thus confounding the inter—
:tion effect.

Inspection of the results regarding the role cate-

ry "how I was in the past with my former spouse” showed

at the perceptions of the subjects changed very little

er time. This seemed to provide indirect evidence of the

raightforwardness of subjects' responses on the self—

>ort measures by demonstrating a willingness to exhibit

change on this dimension, even though improvement was

lected on other measures.

Of particular interest were the results concerning

role category "how I am in social situations." Inspec—

1 of the F—values and mean scores indicated that there

a nonsignificant pretest/posttest main effect. The

.ificant pretest/posttest by experimental/control inter—
On was the result of a modest improvement by the experi—
al group subjects coupled with a continued deterioration

time by the control group subjects. These results sug—

ad that the treatment had the effect of reversing a

.nuing negative self-evaluation in a soc1al context, and

itating a modest, slowly developing, POSitive self-

ation on this dimension.

 

The role most significantly affected by the treatment

intervention was that of ”how I am as a single person."

Examination of the F—values revealed a significant pretest/

posttest main effect and a significant pretest/posttest by

experimental/control interaction. The mean scores showed

3.29 over time. These results suggested that the treatment

intervention facilitated the development of a self—perception

of being single, rather than part of a two-person, couple-

Dased self—definition. It was seen in the review of litera—
:ure that this was considered to be an integral component of

:he overall adjustment process.

An extremely interesting pattern was observed in
xamining the mean scores for the experimental and control

roups on each of the 16 role categories. It was observed

lat, for 13 of the 16 categories, the control group mean

rores showed continued deterioration over time, compared to

rying degrees of improvement in the experimental group mean
ores over time. This seemed to indicate that divorcing per-

18 experienced a sustained deterioration in assessments of

Le manifestations of self in many areas of their lives. This
icess perhaps contributes to the prolonged adjustment period

Cribed by previous researchers. By contrast, the time—

itEd, individual therapeutic experience seemed to facili—

3 the adjustment process by reversing this assessment of

 

 

 

116

oneself in many, although not all, role manifestations of

self. Additionally, these results suggested that not all

areas of divorcing individuals' lives were equally affected

by the divorce experience, or equally affected by a thera—

peutic intervention.
H6:
The ANOVA, using Cattell's 16PF as a measure of
general personality adjustment, will show a pretest/
posttest by experimental/control interaction. The
interaction will take the form such that the experi—
mental group mean score will have moved in a more
positive direction over time when compared to the mean
score of the control group over time.

. was not supported, based on the results of the ANOVA

r

.atistical procedures performed. The 2 X 2 repeated

asures ANOVA was performed on each of the 16 primary

ait factors contained in the 16PF. The pretest/posttest

experimental/control interaction F values and associated

>babilities for all 16 factors are presented in Table 4.6.

tomplete presentation of group means, F values, and associ—

d probabilities for the 16PF is contained in Appendix 0.

Examination of the pretest/posttest by experimental/

trol interaction F values revealed that only two of the

:een primary factors were significant. These were

:ors A and O. The results concerning these two factors

'ested that the short-term treatment intervention led to

eater degree of outgoingness and a reduction in appre—

iveness, self—reproaching, and guilt-proneness.

Id.

a;

 

 

 

 

 

117

Table 4.6.-—Summary of ANOVA Interactions for Test of
Hypothesis 6, Using Cattell's 16PF as a Measure

of Treatment Effect on General Personality

 

 

Adjustment.
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/ F E
Control Interaction —
Factor A 7.33 .010*
B 1 08 .305
C 3.04 .089
E 1.58 .216
F 3.34 .075
G 1 26 .268
H 3.41 .072
I .01 .917
L .05 .827
M 1.66 .205
N .06 .805
o 5.38 .026*
Q1 .17 .682
Q2 .52 .473
Q3 3.61 .065
Q4 2.75 .105

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

 

n A “h—
u-« v»
’LA-A v-
...::C -

.1
: n
.- c
“.3
-0.
~A..
c
n..-
to:
an
S».\.
.._ 0C:
- u~
.. w
““l— e.

15;; ef‘
nextal1<

meas
EXPE
takE
SCOr

 

118

Examination of the group means and F-values presented in
Appendix 0, however, demonstrated that time—limited therapy
did not Significantly affect general personality adjustment.
These results and implications will be more fully explored
in Chapter V.
H7:
The ANOVA, using the Adjustment to Divorce Scale as
a measure of overall adjustment to divorce, will show
a pretest/posttest by experimental/control interaction.
The interaction will take the form such that the experi—
mental group mean score will have moved in a more
positive direction over time when compared to the mean
score of the control group over time.
7 was supported based on the results of the ANOVA statis—
ical procedure performed. The group means, F values, and
ssociated probabilities are reported in Table 4.7. These
asults showed that there was a significant pretest/posttest
.in effect and a significant pretest/posttest by experi—
ntal/control interaction. The interaction was in the pre-
cted direction, as seen by reviewing the mean scores.
ese results thus strongly support the hypothesis that
ne—limited, individual, self—concept based psychotherapy
:ilitates the adjustment processes of divorcing persons.
r implications of these results, will be discussed in
pter V.
H :
8

The ANOVA, using Zuckerman's Anxiety Checklist as a
measure of anxiety, will show a pretest/posttest by
experimental/control interaction. The interaction will
take the form such that the experimental group mean
score will have moved in a more positive direction over

. . L. 111115. I {c (erU C(LCE..C
.2.._:.T.___._.< l... :..._u..: \. u..._u..C£,~Cl>: LO UMCL. MCK <>CZ< k0 \AMGEEJWII-

h -V @HQMKH

 

 

119

.m0.

m0 H0>®H M£QH< am pm

    

pcmonuflcmnm.
mo.wNH

sm.sma umwnpmom
Hm.mNH

mv.mNH

         

umwuwum

     

msouu Hosuqou QDOHO kucwfifluwmxm
mosoom smog

«om. vmv. ov.a powmwm cflwz HOHDCOU\HmuQmEflHwam
*Hoo. Hmv.ma oe.H cofluomuwucH Houucoo\ampcwsnuwdxm an pmmupmom\umwuwum
*mooo.v mam.>a oe.a

poowmm can: wmwwumom\#mwuwmm

 

wocmfium> wo monDOm

 

 

 

ucprmDmpd Hamuw>o c
on ucmsumSmoa was

 

Apcwfipwsflp< poow mwowawmm who
0 Dowmwm ucmE

om nmfimv oOHo>HQ o»
mchD n memo

#mwMB MO whdmwwz w mm wHMUm GOHO>HQ
snooze mo umws mom <>oz< no mumsssmng.n.v manna

 

uuuuuu

 

120

time when compared to the mean score of the control
group over time.

H8 was supported based on the results of the ANOVA statis-

tical procedure performed. The group means, F values, and

associated probabilities are reported in Table 4.8. These

results showed that there was a significant pretest/posttest
main effect and a significant pretest/posttest by experi—

mental/control interaction. The interaction was in the

predicted direction, as seen by examining the mean scores.
These results thus support the hypothesis that time—limited,

individual, self—concept based psychotherapy reduces the

anxiety experienced by divorcing individuals, and would
seem to provide very supportive evidence regarding one of
the prime utilities of time-limited therapy.

The results obtained for hypotheses 1 through 8
would not appear to be the consequence of distortion or
faking by the subjects. The Social Desirability Scale
was used as a measure of such subject behavior. The results
of the 2 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA used to analyze the

iata regarding this instrument are presented in Table 4.9.

Phese results showed that there was a significant pretest/
>osttest by experimental/control interaction. Inspection
f the group means, however, indicated that this interaction
ook the form such that the experimental group subjects

rOpped in their level of social desirability over time,

>..._X:< ....._:._:.._v_..:_N ......T.: C mammaliaClxn: H0 UWCL. ka <>OZ< NO \W‘HymmEeEU.Wll-mw-V @HQWH

 

 

121

 

.mo. mo Hm>wa mama< am pm #:moHMHQGHma

 

 

 

 

 

no mo
om.a oa.wa u up a
on
Ne.m oo.n ummu a
msouw HOHMCOU QDOHD Housmaflummxm
mmuoom can:

ONH. 0mm.N ov.H wowmwm CHNE HOM¥QOU\HM#CMEHH@QXH
amooo.v mov.mm ov.H cofipomuwth Houpa00\amusmafluwmxm an pmwupmom\vmmwmum
«mooo.v hao.wv ov.a howmmm cflnz pmoupmom\ummumum

m I . .
m m p oozmaum> mo moossom
smflmv .Amuwflxc4 30A mnowawom wuoow

muwflx

mpmeC¢ Mo Hw>mq so uowmmm #cmspmw
cm m.smEme05N mcflmb m mflmwzwomhm

H9 mo whamwmz m mm pwflaxomno
no nmms How <>oz< no mumassmau.m.w magma

11IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILHHHHIIIIl-IIIIII

 

 

 

122

 

.mo. no Hm>ma madam am pm n260uuflamuma

 

 

 

 

bIIIl1lIlcllllllllllllllliIllln
mmpumom

mm.as am.ms n
. mononm

am.ss mo 54 u

mdouw Houucoo macho HMpcmfiflhmmxm
mouoom sows
wam. Nmm.a ov.a uommmm can: HoquOU\HMpcmEflummxm
*mao. Hmw.m ov.a aoflpomuwwcH Houhsoo\HMpcmEHmexm an umm¢¢m0m\pmmwmum
ama. woo. os.a hummus cams pmmpumoa\pmmumua
m m .m.o nonmaum> mo wmousom

 

. hpaaanmuamm m
m A . . . o Hwfloom 3 am muowamom wuoow
a mmmeMmcmmwom maflxmwm aw>osdm< Hafioom mo whomwws n no mamom whflaflnm
. a . om w.w30Humz can wasouo mo mflwmfimc< How <>oz¢ mo mquE5m||.m.v manna

|i|

 

 

 

 

123

while the control group subjects increased in their levels

of social desirability over time. In other words, the

experimental group subjects tended to respond more straight-

forwardly and with less concern about their appearance to
others at the posttest. By contrast, the control group
subjects tended to respond at the posttest out of a greater
desire to deny bad qualities and claim good qualities.

These results would seem to enhance the results obtained
regarding the effects of the treatment intervention on the
measured aspects of the self—concept and on overall adjust-
ment to divorce.

Hypotheses 9, 10, and 11 were tested by means of the
Pearson product—moment correlation statistic procedure.
Correlations were considered significant if the resultant

probability for each pair—wise correlation was less than

.01 (one-tailed).

H9:
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients
will show positive relationships among measures of
self—esteem, assessment of roles, acceptance of
others, general personality adjustment, and overall

adjustment to divorce.
H9 was partially supported based on the results of the Pearson

product-moment correlation procedures performed. All of the
predicted relationships were demonstrated except those
regarding acceptance of others and general personality
adjustment. The correlations are presented in Tables 4.10

through 4.15. Inspection of the correlations contained in

 

 

r—

124

Table 4.10.——Pearson Product—Moment Correlations among
Measures of Social Desirability, Acceptance
of Others, Self—Esteem, Existential Anxiety,
Social Avoidance and Distress, Anxiety, and
Overall Adjustment to Divorce.

 

 

 

 

SOCDES ACO S—E EXANX SADS ANX ADS
SOCDES .351 .26 —.10 —.03 .04 .24
ACO .37* —.36* —.23 —.16 .43*
S—E —.82* —.355* —.59* .61*
EXANX —.40* .67* —.59*
SADS .14 —.33
ANX -.47*
ADS

*Significant at an Alpha level of .01.

Legend

SOCDES = Social Desirability Scale
ACO = Acceptance of Others Scale
S—E = Self-Esteem Scale
EXANX = Existential Anxiety Scale
SADS = Social Avoidance and Distress Scale
ANX = Anxiety Checklist
ADS = Adjustment to Divorce Scale

 

 

 

125

Table 4.ll.--Pearson Product-Moment Correlations of Measures of Aspects
of the Self-Concept, Anxiety, and Overall Adjustment to
Divorce with a Measure of General Personality Adjustment.

 

 

 

SOCDES ACO S-E EXANX SADS ANX ADS
PF A .22 .34 .14 —.13 —.016 —.02 .20
B — 23 22 09 —.16 — 26 — 05 23
c .28 .31 .66* -.55* -.37* —.40* .59*
E -.05 -.05 .355* —.30 —.40* -.140 .16
F .05 .17 .23 —.26 -.55* -.1o .23
G .33 .27 .01 .02 .06 .18 .02
H .25 .31 .43* —.41* —.71* —.14 .44*
I — 12 .09 — 28 .11 001 25 — 11
L -.40* -.42* —.22 .14 .09 .07 -.24
M .02 .04 .21 -.29 -.41* —.08 .26
N - 01 07 —.07 .06 10 — 03 02
o -.20 -.23 -.78* .73* .58* .55* —.56*
Q1 —.23 —.07 .04 —.03 -.24 .04 .05
02 -.18 -.28 —.07 .03 .10 .06 -.04
Q3 .07 —.04 .32 -.21 —.10 —.26 .36*
Q4 —.23 —.25 -.60* .54* .36* .41* —.39*

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .01.

Legend

SOCDES:= Social Desirability Scale

ACO = Acceptance of Others Scale

3‘3 = Self-Esteem Scale

EXANX = Existential Anxiety Scale

SADS = Social Avoidance and Distress Scale
ANX = Anxiety Checklist

ADS = Adjustment to Divorce Scale

PFA through PFQ4 = 16PF Personality Factors

e————-—--IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEIIIIIIIIIII

126

Table 4—12.-—Pearson Product-Moment Correlations of Measures of Aspects
of the Self-Concept, Anxiety, and Overall Adjustment to
Divorce with a Measure of Perceptions of Self in Life

 

 

Roles.

SD Roles SOCDES ACO S-E EXANX SADS ANX ADS
Single Person .42* .28 .63* —.53* -.44* —.32 .63*
Goal Setter .34 .17 .69* —.62* -.41* —.29 .57*
Sexually .20 .27 .53* —.56* —.33 -.31 .44*
Spiritually .37* .25 .63* -.63* -.23 —.29 .56*
Employee .17 .15 .37* -.27 —.006 —.24 .33
Host/Hostess .38* .32 .31 —.35 -.49* —.22 .59*
Sportsperson .37* .20 .46* —.28 -.31 —.12 .43*
Friend .35 .46* .63* —.56* -.O2 -.41* .57*
Disciplinarian .44* .31 .49* —.38* -.24 —.22 .42*
Homemaker .29 .02 .55* —.51* -.37* —.37* .41*
Now with Former Spouse .06 .19 .18 -.35 —.23 -.17 .358*
Parent .15 .17 .62* -.52* -.44* -.34 .57*
Was with Former Spouse .12 .16 .07 -.11 -.24 -.O3 —.03
SOCial Situations .42* .33 .57* —.47* —.69* -.16 .53*
Meeting Expenses .21 .33 .47* -.41* —.28 -.36* .31

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .01.

Legend
SOCDES = Social Desirability Scale
\C0 = Acceptance of Others Scale
5‘E = Self-Esteem Scale
EXANX = Existential Anxiety Scale
;ADS = Social Avoidance and Distress Scale
“X = Anxiety Checklist
DS = Adjustment to Divorce Scale

D Roles = Semantic Differential Role Categories

 

127

mMOHUML muHHMCOmem mme u we mm cmsouflu < mm "Ucwqu

.Ho. mo H0>®H mamH¢ am pm wcmonHcmHm«

  
  

h0.l mH.I *Hh. ON.I No.1 sum. Hmm. Nmm.1 No.1 mo. mm.l «mn.1 no. mo.1 v0
50. mH. *vv.l SN. mo. NH.I mN.I HH. mo. NN.I NN. aHm. mo. HH. m0
*Nv. mo.l mo.l HN. mo. no.1 mN.I awmm.l mN.I *hm. mo. NO. ON.I NO

VH.I wo.l NH. ON. hH.I No.l *mv.I go. now. 00. 00. MH. HO

OH. gm.l mN. mN. amm.l MH. Om.l «bv.l rho.l HH.I ®H.I O

awv.| wH.l NH. NO.I mm. «vv.l MH.I gm. wH.I HH.I Z

OH.I no. 0N. mN.I Om. *mm. SH. wN. 000. 2

HH.! ON.I mH.| NH. mo. mN.1 mo. ©O.1 A

mH.I HH. mo.l gm.l Nmm.l moo.l 0H.I H

mo. tow. VN. *Hm. mo. avg. m

hH.I mH.I 50. Ho. VH. w

mN. v0. wH. gm. m

NM. 00. 0H. m

mo. ON. 0

mm. m

4

 

H H m w h m U m < hm

.mme ®£#,mo mCOHUMHwHHOOkuQH HEOEOEIMOSUOHm COmHthII.3+ )iztl

 

128

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mmHuommumu mHom HmHucwnmwuHo QHucmaww u mmHom Om “muouomm auHHmcowumm mme 1 v0 mm bosons» a mm "cawmmq

.Ho. Ho Hm>wH mamHa um um pamonHamHm.
om.1 no. mH.1 mH.1 nm.1 Hm. mo. «mmm.1 mo. Hm. mm. ao. No.1 mm. 600.1 so. mmmawmxm mcHuwms
468.1 mm. no.1 Hm. .nw.1 6H.1 mm. oN.1 HH.1 .ae. mo. 46m. am. .68. Ho. Hm. maoHumauHm HmHoom
«H.1 mH. MN.1 0H.1 mH.1 mm. mo. VH.1 mo. oN. Noe. om.1 mo.1 pH. no.1 mo. omsomm unsuom nuHs was
mm.1 mm. o~.1 mo. «No.1 mm.1 mm. HH.- 8H.1 «mm. «0.1 .mw. mH. mm. mo. ow. uamumm
e~.1 mH. no. HH.1 om.1 mo. mN. am.1 mo. mm. mo. mo. mo.1 vm. mo.1 No.1 mmsomm Hashes aqu 302
168.1 mm. vo.1 mo.1 408.1 mo. 0H. aom.1 pH.1 em. mH. No. mo. *mv. mH.1 HH. umxmawsom
.na.1 4mm. mo.1 moo. *vm.1 eH.1 oH. mo.1 m~.1 1am. mo. HH. Hm. *mv.. mH. 0H. :mHumaHHmHomHo
cm.1 so. mH.1 HH.1 .om.1 6H.1 mo. sm.1 6H.1 *Hm. HH. mm. NH.1 mm. MH.1 HH. ocmHnm
«om.1 mH. MH. mm. «48.1 HH.1 mo. mm.1 408.1 4ev. mo.1 No. On. “ma. NN.1 woo. :omuwmmuuomm
mm.1 HH. mH.1 moo. 4mv.1 «0. 6H. am.1 mo. «Ho. NH. an. mo. 45m. HH.1 om. mmoumom\umom
46m.1 mH. NH. moo. v~.1 «0. mo.1 no.1 mo.1 oH. mo. No. no.1 Hm. mH.1 mo. wwsones
*mv.1 mm. mo.1 NH.1 1Ho.1 mo.1 Hm. mm.1 Ho.1 4mm. HH. mH. mw. 4mm. no.1 wH. sHHmauHuHmm
408.1 mm. 80.1 60.1 40m.1 NH. Hm. oH.1 Ho.1 *Ne. 6H. mo. mo. «na. poo. no. HHHmaxmm
.Hm.1 4mm. HO. OH. amm.1 NH.1 Hm. MH.1 aH.1 raw. so. HH. ‘me. «Ho. ao. on. umpuwm Hmow
.mv.1 Hm. no.1 mo. asm.1 mm.1 mm. mH.1 no.1 «ma. v0.1 Hm. OH. «mm. No.1 OH. aomumm mHmaHm
.mm.1 «am. mo.1 mo. 4NB.1 NN.1 mm. 6H.1 mH.1 4Hm. mo.1 na. mm. amm. moo.1 NH. HHHmsuowHkuaH
80 mo Nd Ho 0 z s H H m o m m o m 4 mm moHom om

 

m0 m:0HummUuwm mo whammwz m can

l

.onom meH aH MHmm

uawEumnmcd >uHHMCOmea Hmuocmw mo whammmz m ammzpmn mcoHumHmHuou #:05021

poocoum aomumom11.vH.v anms

 

.129

 

mmHnomwumo wHom HMHuswumMMHQ UHu:MEwm

meom Gm

"pcwmmq

.Ho. Ho Hm>mH maaHa :8 um uaaoHuHamHm1

 

mwmcmmxm msHumwz

mGOHumsuHm HnHoom

 

*mm.
«mv. mm. wwsomm quHom AHHB mm:
hm. «mm. mo. useumm
«om. mm. sow. VN. wmflomm NOEHOh SUH3 302
*om. amq. 00. «we. {Hv. memeEom
NN. «vm. v0. umm. Nm. mN. GMHchHHmHOMHQ
om. «mm. so. .06. oH. 1mm. .Nv. ncoHum
vm. «vw. mo. vm. HN. «Hv. amm. ave. comuwmmeuomm
mH. «Ho. mo.1 amv. mm. om. *ov. awm. «ow. mmmumom\umom
no. mH. mm.| Om. OH.| Nm. Om. :mv. NM. Hmm. wwmonem
HN. 40m. mo.1 «mm. mm. awe. amv. amm. awn. 4mm. mm. wHHasuHuHmm
Nm. new. mH. *nmm. *Hw. «mm. «mm. «wv. Nm. «we. vmm. amm. mHHMSxmm
MN. amo. mo. aNo. mN. the. «om. tow. *hv. awv. 5N. aNh. *mv. kuvmw Hmow
amv. *mn. me. «no. mm. amm. son. «om. *Hm. amm. *Nv. umm. «av. «mm. comuwm mecHw
«mmm. awo. mo. «Hm. Nm. 4mm. 4mm. «Hm. «Ho. *mv. 4mg. #vm. rum. aHh. aHm. hHHmnuowHkucH
W S M a N H G a S H S S D S I
H m .5. m m m a. u. a a m a. H H .u. w.
3 I. a o e 1 1 T 1 n T. b a
T. E M u m m T. u 3 ,/ o I. e I I
u T T. 1 T. d P s H K 3 T S a T
5 1. 3. M. T d O a n T. e a
S H u. e I. e s a e A 3 a o
a I. 1 u a 3. I .4 a 1
a m m u m m w m. n m m
e e 1 m I. u s o T mmHom om
w N w s w u I
e o x 1 A
s u
S TWO TM”
0 O
n n
S S
a a

 

.HMHucmHoMMHQ QHquEmm mt» mo mcoHuMHmuuooumqu uamfiozluosuoum GOmHmmmll.mH.v MHQMH

l

 

130

these tables revealed that measures of self—esteem, assess—
ment of roles, and overall adjustment to divorce were posi—
tively related. Thirteen of the sixteen role categories of
the semantic differential correlated positively with both
self—esteem and overall adjustment to divorce. A measure
of acceptance of others was correlated positively with
self-esteem and overall adjustment to divorce, but showed
minimal relationships with assessment of roles or general
personality adjustment. Somewhat surprisingly, general
personality adjustment showed little relationship with the
measures of self—esteem, assessment of roles, and overall

adjustment to divorce. Measures of self-esteem and overall

 

adjustment to divorce were correlated significantly with
only five of the 16 factors of the 16PF. The measure of
acceptance of others correlated significantly with only

one of the factors of the 16PF, and the 16 role categories
of the semantic differential correlated significantly with
the 16PF factors only sporadically. These results will be
examined more fully in discussing the results of hypothesis
11.

The correlations among the role categories of the
semantic differential showed a pattern of consistent
relationships among 12 of the 16 roles. The four role
categories which were not correlated with the other role
categories were "employee," "meeting expenses,“ "now with

your former spouse," and "was in the past with your former

 

131

spouse." The role categories regarding self in relation

to the former spouse are particularly interesting and sug—
gest that assessment of self—functioning in these areas is a
distinct and separate process from assessment of self—
functioning in the other observed role categories.

The overall results regarding hypothesis 9 seemed
to provide evidence that these measures of aspects of the
self—concept generally were positively correlated with each
other and with the measure of overall adjustment to divorce,
but not with a measure of general personality development.
Thus, it would seem that the trauma of the divorce experi—
ence does not necessarily result in significant disruption
to divorcing individuals' general personality structures,
even when those individuals are manifesting significant dis—
ruption in different aspects of their self-concepts and in
their adjustments to the divorce experience.

H10:

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients will
show positive relationships among measures of social
avoidance and distress, hopelessness and purposeless—
ness, and anxiety.

H10 is largely supported based on the results of the Pearson
product—moment correlation procedures performed. The corre—
lations are presented in Tables 4.10 through 4.15. Exami—
nation of these correlations showed that all of the pre-

icted relationships occurred except one. Anxiety was not

ignificantly correlated with social avoidance and distress.

 

 

132

This, in itself, is a very interesting "nonrelationship"
and will be discussed more fully in Chapter V.

These results indicated that, as predicted, measures
of anxiety and hopelessness and purposelessness were signifi-
cantly related, and that hopelessness and purposelessness
was positively related with social avoidance and distress.
Thus, the two aspects of the self-concept listed in this
hypothesis were significantly related in the predicted direc-
tion, but anxiety was only positively related with hopeless-
ness and purposelessness.

H11:
Measures of self—esteem, assessment of roles,
acceptance of others, general personality adjustment,

and overall adjustment to divorce will be inversely
correlated with measures of social avoidance and dis-
tress, hopelessness and purposelessness in life, and

anxiety, when tested with the Pearson product—moment
correlation coefficient procedure.

Hll was only partially supported based on the results of the
Pearson product-moment correlation procedures performed be—
cause all of the predicted pair-wise correlations were not
found. The correlations are presented in Tables 4.10 through
4.15. Examination of these correlations revealed that four
Specific factors of the measure of general personality adjust—
ment tended to correlate significantly in the predicted
directions with the measures of aspects of the self—concept,
anxiety, and overall adjustment to divorce. These four
factors were factor C, factor H, factor 0, and factor Q4.

actor c is an assessment of low ego strength vs. high ego

 

 

 

133

strength. Factor H is an assessment of timidity and threat—
sensitiveness vs. uninhibitedness and social boldness.
Factor 0 is an assessment of untroubled adequacy vs. appre—
hensiveness, insecurity, and guilt—proneness. Factor Q4

is an assessment of relaxed, tranquil, unfrustrated func—
tioning vs. tense, frustrated, driven functioning. It
should be noted that a measure of acceptance of others did
not correlate significantly with any of these four factors.
The consistency of the significant correlations of the

other measures with one another and these four factors of the
16PF, however, points strongly to the direction of the impact
of the divorce experience in people's lives, and also to the
limits of that impact. These results suggested that, how—
ever painful and traumatic the divorce experience was for
some peOple, that trauma was manifested in particular and
limited components of the general personality structure,

and that those components were strongly related with certain
aspects of the self-concept. Examination of the correlations
showed that, except for the measure of acceptance of others,
the other measures of aspects of the self—concept generally
were significantly correlated. All of the role cate-

gories of the semantic differential did not significantly

 

correlate with all of the other measures, but the patterning
and consistency of the correlations made it appropriate to

conclude that assessment of roles tended to correlate

 

 

134

significantly with the other measures of aspects of the
self—concept, and with overall adjustment to divorce.

The predicted correlations regarding anxiety were
not fully demonstrated. A measure of anxiety did not corre—
late significantly with measures of acceptance of others,
social avoidance and distress, assessment of roles, or
general personality adjustment. The predicted correlations
were obtained between measures of anxiety and self—esteem,
hopelessness and purposelessness in life, and overall
adjustment to divorce. Interestingly, the Anxiety Checklist
did correlate significantly with three of the four factors
in the 16PF just discussed (factors C, O, and Q4). These
results suggested that anxiety did seem to be an important
component in the adjustment to divorce process, in individ-
uals‘ level of self—esteem, and in individuals' sense of
direction, purpose, and meaning in life. Anxiety, however,
did not seem to be a major component in social participation,
acceptance of others, assessment of roles, or general per—
sonality adjustment.

The correlations found in Table 4.10 provided strong
evidence of the relationship between overall adjustment to
ivorce and the aspects of the self—concept observed in the
ourse of the present study. The Adjustment to Divorce
cale correlated significantly with all of the measures of
Spects of the self—concept, and with the Anxiety Checklist.

lthough the Adjustment to Divorce Scale did not tend to

 

135

correlate significantly with many of the factors of the
l6PF, as seen in Table 4.11, the measure did correlate
significantly with the four previously discussed factors
(C, H, 0, Q4).

The results just reported regarding the research
hypotheses of the present study will be discussed in greater
detail in Chapter V. An attempt will be made at that time
to synthesize and integrate the meaning and implications
of the results of this study. Prior to such an effort,
however, the results concerning the ancillary analysis of
data will be presented. These results provide a more com—
prehensive examination of a number of issues, in the context
of which the synthesis of the results of the study can take

place more meaningfully.

Results of the Ancillary Analysis of Data

 

The Pearson product—moment correlation coefficient.
procedure was used to observe the relationships among the
emographic variables, and among the demographic variables
nd the dependent measures. Correlations were considered
ignificant if the resultant probabilities were less than
01 (one-tailed). These correlations are presented in
able 4.16.

Examination of the results presented in Table 4.16
evealed very few unexpected relationships. The results
owed that age was significantly correlated with length of

rriage, number of previous marriages, number of children,

 

136

vH.

*mv.

MN.1

NH.1

ON.

*mm.1

NN.

ZHm

mH.
mm. MH.

om. SH.1 oo.
mH.1 VH.1 ooo.1
mmm.1 no.1 mo.
mm.1 no.1 4mmm.1
mo. No.1 mO.1
«Hm.1 mH. 00.1
mo. mo.1 mH.1
.oo.1 mo. 80.

mmmm ZHHO N BZH

0O.1

ON.1

OH.1

NH.)

Om.1

mH.

«mm.1

H BZH

VOO.1

MH.1

00.1

mo.)

00.1

wO.1

D>HD

mhmm

ZHHU

m 52H

H BZH

o>Ho

BmDU

vo.1 oHHmo

mo.1 4mm. mdzmmm

mH. VN. NN.1 Hmflz

.sw.1 Hm. VH. mo.1 xmm
mm. *om. *Nv. *vm. NH.1

  

BmDU DQHmU mmEmmm

Ame: xmm mwd

 

unopcomwo wan pom moHQMHuo> UHQQonoEoQ macaw mcoHuonuMoo uzofioz1uospou

 

 

 

.mouamwoz
m commo0h11.>4.1 11

 

 

137

VN.1

 

 

OH.1 OO.1 mo. Hm.1 Ho.1 OO. OO.1 mo. NH.1
OH. OO.1 mo. OO.1 so. OH.1 OH. OO.1 OO.1 mH.
AH. OO.1 mH.1 NH. no.1 OO. mo. OH. am. ao.1
HO. mo. No.1 OH.1 moo. OO.1 OO. OH.1 am.1 om.
.emm. OO. OH.1 No.1 OH. OO.1 OH. Om.1 Om.1 OO.
.sv. OO.1 OO.1 OH. No. No.1 OH. am.1 ON.1 OH.
OH. mo. so. NH. OH. OOO. OH. Ho.1 OH.1 OO.1
HH. mo. OH. OO. mo. OO.1 HO. HO. sH. OO.
«O. OH. OH.1 OO.1 Hm. OO.1 OO.1 om.1 sm.1 OOO.1
HH.1 OH. OH. ao.1 OH.1 OO. OH. mm. mm. no.1
OH.1 HH.1 OOO. No.1 HH.1 ON. HN.1 em. sH. OH.1
OH.1 OO. so. oH.1 ON.1 OO. OOO. .nv. 1mg. OO.1
om. OH.1 no.1 mo. ON. Hm.1 mo. Om.1 .mo.1 OH.
HO. OO. OH.1 Om. OO. OO. HO. o~.1 HH. OO.1
OH.1 NH. OO. OH. HO. om.1 OH.1 HH. OH.1 Ho.
zHo memo zHHO m ezH H ezH O>HO emOO OHHmo mazmmo Haas

OH.

MOO.I

mo.1

mO.I

Om.1

OH.1

mN.1

mO.

OH.

OH.1

ON.

OO.

NH.1

OO.

OH.

xmm

MH. H
OH. m
no. 0
hOO.1 m
VH.1 m
OO.! O
OH.1 m
NH. 4 mm
NN.I m04
OH. XZN
v0.1 mQflm
OH. xz¢xm
no.1 Him
Ho.1 00¢
OH.1 mmnvom
WOO

 

.OmsaHu:OO11.OH.v OHnms

 

138

«HW.1 OO. Ho.1 OH.1 OH.1 OO.1 v0.1 ON. mm. MN.I

MH. OH.1 O HO.1 OO. OO.1 OH.1 OO. OOO. OH.
HO. Nm. HN. v0.1 HN. OO. NH.1 NH.1 HO. NN.1
OH. MH. ON. NH. OO. OO.1 OH. OH.1 mOO.1 v0.
OH.1 OOO. HH. SO. hN.I MH. vOO. mm. amm. OO.1
NN. OH.1 MH.1 ON. «Om.1 OH. v0.1 OO.1 NH. OO.1
OO.1 No.1 HO. HH.1 Hm. OO.1 MH. HH.1 Hm.1 OH.
mo. OH. ON. ON.1 HH.1 OH.1 vH.1 OO.1 HO. OO.

 

Ohmm ZHHU N BZH H BZH Q>HQ BODU OHHEU MOSmmm 4mm:

OH. OO. Va
NN. «0. m0
OO.1 ON.1 NO
NH.1 OH. HO
OOO. VN. O
OH. mo. Z
OH.1 OO. 2

NO.

 

XWO mam

.OmacHucoO11.OH.v OHnme

 

 

 

 

.HO. mo HO>OH manm co um HQOUHMHGOHOO

Om. OO. ON.1 NH. OO.1 OH.1 OO.1 OH.1 OO.1 HOO.1 OO.1 NH. mmmamoxm OOHuomz

NOO. HH. OH. OO.1 mH. Hm.1 OOO. HH.1 NH.1 OH. NO. OO.1 maoHnmauHm HOHooO

OH. OH. OH.1 ON. OO.1 ON.1 Ho.1 OO.1 OH. NN.1 OO. ON. mmsomm Hmsuom aan was

OOO.1 OH.1 OO.1 OO.1 NH. OO.1 OO.1 OO. OH.1 OH. HH. OO.1 Homumo

OO. HO. OO.1 NO. OH. OO.1 OH.1 OH. OH. NO. OO. ON. Omsoom Hmsuom OOH; 302

NH. OH.1 OO. OH.1 NH. HN.1 OH.1 NH. NH.1 OOO. OH. NO. memsmsom

OO.1 NN. OH.1 NH.1 Nm. OH.1 OO.1 No.1 OOO.1 OO.1 OH. OH.1 OOHHOOHHQHOOHO

W. No. O00... OO.1 mo. ON. NH... ON.1 NO. NO... HH. OH. OO. OGOHHm
11 OO. NH. ON. OO.1 ON. OH.1 OO.1 OO.1 OH.1 OO. No.1 OO.1 oowHOOOHHooO
ON.1 OO.1 No.1 OH.1 ON. OO.1 OO.1 OO.1 OH.1 OO. Om. OH.1 mmmumom\nmom

OO. OOO.1 OO. OH.1 ON. OH. OO.1 OH.1 ON.1 NO. OH. OH.1 mmsoHoam

Ho.1 OO.1 OH. OO.1 NH. OH.1 OO.1 OO.1 ON.1 OH. OH. No.1 NHHOOOHHHOO

OO. OO. OO.1 OH. ON. OH.1 OO.1 Ho.1 OO.1 OH. OO. OO. NHHmaxmm

NN. OH.1 OH. NH.1 OO. ON.1 OH. OO.1 HN.1 OH. OH.1 OOO.1 HOHHOO Hmoo

OO.1 OO. OH. OH.1 ON. *Om.1 NN.1 OO.1 Hm.1 HN. NN. OO.1 OOOHOO OHOOHO

OO. OO.1 OO. NH.1 NN. NN.1 NOO.1 OH.1 .NO.1 OH. NO. OH.1 NHHOOHOOHHOHOH

 

ZHm mmmm ZHHU N EZH H BZH Q>HQ HOBO QHHEU mmzmmm HMQZ xMO m0¢ mmHom Om

 

 

 

 

.UODQHHCOUII.OH.O OHQOB

 

11|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHHIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllllllllllllllllllll

 

 

140

Legend for Table 4.16

AGE = Age of Subjects

SEX = Sex of Subjects

MARL = Length of Marriage

PREMAR = Number of Previous Marriages

CHILD = Number of Children

CUST = Custodial Parent

DIVD = Person Desiring Divorce

INT 1 = Interval between Date of Final Separation and Date of Filing
Petition for Divorce

INT 2 = Interval between Date of Filing Petition for Divorce and Date
of Seeking Counseling

CLIN = Clinician

REFS = Referral Sources

FIN = Individual Financial Resources

SOCDES = Social Desirability Scale

ACO = Acceptance of Others Scale

S-E = Self—Esteem Scale

EXANX = Existential Anxiety Scale

SADS = Social Avoidance and Distress Scale

ANX = Anxiety Checklist

ADS = Adjustment to Divorce Scale

PF A through PF Q = 16PF Personality Factors

SD ROLES = Semantic Differential Role Categories

 

141

length of time between final separation and filing the
petition for divorce, and referral source. The last two
categories were the only less—than—obvious correlates with
age. These results suggested that younger people tended to
wait a longer period of time than older individuals, follow-
ing the final separation, before filing a petition for
divorce. Additionally, it seemed that older subjects were
more likely than younger subjects to have become aware of
the present counseling program/research project through
Friend of the Court or Legal Aid, than through Lansing
Community College, the Domestic Assult Program, or the

Woman's Resource Center.

 

Other significant correlations revealed that women
most frequently had custody of their children, men made more
money than women, individuals with a number of previous
marriages tended to have more children than individuals
with fewer or no previous marriages, and individuals who
sought counseling soon after the filing of the petition for
divorce tended to have more children than those individuals

ho waited a longer period of time.

Examination of the correlations among the demo—
raphic variables and the dependent measures revealed very
ew significant correlations. Following are those rela-
ionships which appear to have particular relevance.
ndividuals with more previous marriages tended to have

ower self—esteem, demonstrated a greater sense of

 

 

142

hopelessness and purposelessness, and perceived themselves
as less intellectually capable than individuals with fewer
or no previous marriages. Individuals with more children
demonstrated a greater sense of hopelessness and purposeless—
ness than people with fewer children. PeOple who had been
married longer tended to see themselves as better homemakers
than did people married a shorter period of time. Individ—
uals who were seeking the divorce tended to see themselves
as single persons more positively than did individuals
whose spouses were seeking the divorce. These relationships
all seemed to be rather predictable and supportive of gene-
ral observations. Of particular interest, however, were
some of the relationships that did not prove to be signifi—
cant in this study. Previous researchers have gathered con—
flicting data regarding these issues. The results obtained
in this study suggested that length of marriage, sex, age,
number of children, person desiring the divorce and finan—
cial status were not correlated significantly with self—
esteem, acceptance of others, assessment of roles, general
ersonality adjustment, hopelessness and purposelessness
'n life, social participation, level of anxiety, or overall
djustment to divorce. In other words, these results sug—
ested that people traumatically affected by the divorce
xperience did not come from particular categories of the
uman spectrum. These results will be discussed further in

hapter V.

 

143

Although the results provided by the Pearson product—
moment correlations indicated that there were no significant
relationships between the person desiring the divorce (sub—
ject or spouse) and the dependent measures, additional
analysis of this variable was conducted using the t—test
procedure to compare the two groups at the time of the pre-
test. The sample was almost evenly divided between subjects
who were desiring the divorce (20), and subjects whose
spouses were desiring the divorce (18). The other four sub—
jects in the study were seeking the divorce in conjunction
with their spouse. Unfortunately, the random assignment

procedure had not resulted in an even distribution of these

 

two groups between the experimental and control groups.

Thus, it seemed appropriate to examine the sample on this
dimension in order to identify possible initial differences
which might then have needed to be dealt with as a covariate.
The results of the t-test procedure are summarized in

Table 4.17. Differences were considered statistically
significant if the resultant t-values were larger than the
tabled t—value at alpha = .10 (two—tailed).

Inspection of the t—values in Table 4.17 revealed
that there were only two significant differences on any of
the dependent measures between subjects desiring the divorce
and subjects whose spouses were desiring the divorce. The
results showed that subjects who were desiring the divorce

tended to perceive themselves as parents and homemakers

 

 

144

Table 4.17.—-Summary of the t—test Procedure with the Demo—
graphic Variable, "Person Desiring Divorce."

 

Mean Scores

 

 

 

t—value p
Subject Spouse
SOCDES 47.69 48.43 —.39 .699
ACO 60.45 58.51 .83 .410
S—E 22.15 24.50 —l.35 .185
EXANX 51.73 48.79 1.02 .316
SADS 45.28 44.42 .32 .752
ANX 8.20 7.11 .71 .485
ADS 128.39 123.95 .72 .477
PF A 5.05 5.05 —.01 .993
B 5.35 4.88 .86 .396
C 3.85 4.00 -.29 .775
E 5.70 5.61 .11 .909
F 5.70 5.16 .86 .398
G 5.20 5.55 —.66 .515
H 4.90 4.94 —.08 .939
I 5.05 5.16 —.18 .858
L 6.50 5.44 1.59 .120
M 5.25 4.88 .70 .485
N 4.95 6.00 —1.57 .126
O 6.90 7.22 —.52 .603
Ql 6.25 6.05 .27 .786
Q2 6.10 6.27 —.28 .781
Q3 5.05 4.38 1.03 .308

Q4 6.95 6.50 .83 415

 

 

145

Table 4.17.-—Continued.

 

Mean Scores
S.D. Roles

 

————————————————— t—value E
Subject Spouse

Intellectually 73.42 79.61 —l.l6 .253
Single Person 74.80 77.52 —.48 .636
Goal Setter 69.33 77.62 -1.41 .166
Sexually 74.28 74.42 —.02 .982
Spiritually 65.09 69.23 -.62 .541
Employee 91.38 86.95 .82 .416
Host/Hostess 86.23 78.33 1.39 .171
Sportsperson 75.33 74.42 .12 .902
Friend 83.76 86.80 —.61 .548
Disciplinarian 75.33 79.66 -.69 .496
Homemaker 71.52 83.90 —1.81 .078*
Now With Former Spouse 59.47 59.04 .07 .941
Parent 78.19 91.95 -2.27 .028*
Was With Former Spouse 68.71 77.52 -l.40 .170
Social Situations 74.19 78.66 -.78 .441
Meeting Expenses 77.38 79.28 —.27 .789

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .10.

Legend
SOCDES = Social Desirability Scale
AC0 = Acceptance of Others Scale
S-E = Self—Esteem Scale
EXANX = Existential Anxiety Scale
SADS = Social Avoidance and Distress Scale
ANX = Anxiety Checklist
ADS =

Adjustment to Divorce Scale
PF A through PF Q = 16PF Personality Factors
SD Roles = Semantic Differential Role Categories

 

 

 

146

more negatively than did subjects whose spouses were desir—
ing the divorce. Generally, however, these results, com—
bined with the results of the correlational analysis, pro—
vided a strong counter-argument to the commonly held View
that divorcing individuals who were seeking the divorce

were different from divorcing individuals who were not seek—
ing the divorce action, and were less affected by the
divorce experience.

The Acceptability to Others scale was a five-item
scale included in Fey's overall Acceptance of Others scale.
The data obtained from the inclusion of this scale were
analyzed by means of the 2 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA and
the Pearson product—moment correlation coefficient proced-
ures. The group means, F values, and associated proba—
bilities for the ANOVA are presented in Table 4.18. Inspec—
tion of the results revealed that there was a significant
pretest/posttest by experimental/control interaction.
Examination of the mean scores indicated that the experi-
mental group subjects developed more positive self—
perceptions of acceptability to others over time, while the
control group subjects developed less positive self—
perceptions of acceptability to others over time. Thus,
it seemed that the treatment intervention had the effects
Of reversing a negative self-evaluation, and facilitating
a modest movement in the direction of more positive self—

Perceptions of acceptability to others.

 

 

147

 

.Oo. Ho HO>OH maoH< am pm OOOOHOHOOHOO

 

 

ON.NH ON.NH HOOHHOOO
OO.HH NO.OH ummnmuo
moose HOHHGOO QSOHO HOHCOEHHomxm

 

WQHOOW Gmwz

 

mmm. Omm. OO.H Hommmm can HOHHGOU\HmpsoEHHomxm

*HHO. ON.O OO.H soHuoosmucH HOHHQOU\HOHsoEHHomxm an umwuumom\umowoum
OOH. om.H OO.H powmmm cHoz ummhpmom\HOOHoum
m M .m.p oocmHHw> mo moouoom

 

.lmnmauo on NHHHHOOHOOOOO 30H OHOOHOmm mHoom OOHOO mnwouo on
lonumooo¢ mm OHom mo mooHumoouom co uoommm pcofipmwua mo OHSmOoE
m on OHoom muotuo on NHHHHQmHmoood mo Home H0O <>Oz< mo humsfiom11.mH.O OHQOB

 

 

148

The Pearson product—moment correlation coefficients
between the Acceptability to Others scale and the demo-
graphic variables are presented in Table 4.19. Examination
of these results indicated that there were no significant
correlations. Thus, it would seem that self—perceptions of
acceptability to others are not likely to be positive or
negative based on age, sex, length of marriage, etc. The
Pearson product—moment correlations of the Acceptability to
Others scale with the other dependent measures are presented
in Table 4.20. Examination of these results indicated that
the Acceptability to Others scale was positively correlated
with measures of self—esteem, acceptance of others, assess—
ment of roles, and overall adjustment to divorce. The
Acceptability to Others scale was inversely correlated with
measures of hopelessness and purposelessness, and social
avoidance and distress. The Acceptability to Others scale
correlated significantly with only six of the factors in
the 16PF. Four of these factors, however, were factors C,
H, O, and Q4. These four factors were observed earlier to
correlate consistently with the other measures of the
aSpects of the self—concept and overall adjustment to
divorce. These results seemed to indicate that self-
perceptions of being acceptable to others were related to
other aspects of the self-concept and certain components of
general personality structure. Additionally, it appeared

that self—perceptions of being acceptable to others became

-.v
gas-I—
" .l-_'_'

.-

‘ W

 

 

 

 

149

Table 4.19.-—Pearson Product—Moment Correlations of Accept—
ability to Others Scale and Second-Stratum 16PF
Factors with Demographic Variables.

 

 

 

ATO EXVIA PFANX CORTERTIA INDEP
AGE .06 .06 .10 -.25 -.13
SEX .03 —.O7 .12 —.18 —.23
MARL .10 .22 —.16 .15 .07
PREMAR -.04 —.15 .34 -.37* -.30
CHILD .02 —.08 .26 -.16 —.32
CUST .02 .15 —.07 .02 .11
DIVD —.11 -.16 .03 -.09 -.13
INT 1 .09 .04 -.22 .17 .27
INT 2 -.04 —.10 -.08 -.25 ~.07
CLIN -.15 .05 .03 .15 .25
REFS —.06 —.03 .06 .09 .14
FIN .12 .11 -.34 .18 .22

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .01.

 

150
Legend for Table 4.19

ATO = Acceptability to Others

EXVIA = Invia vs. Exvia Second-Stratum Factor of 16PF

PFANX = Adjustment vs. Anxiety Second-Stratum Factor of 16PF
CORTERTIA = Pathemia vs. Cortertia Second-Stratum Factor of

16PF
INDEP = Subduedness vs. Independence Second Stratum Factor
of 16PF
AGE = Age
SEX = Sex

MARL = Length of Marriage

PREMAR = Number of Previous Marriages

CHILD — Number of Children

CUST = Custodial Parent

DIVD = Person Desiring Divorce

INT 1 = Interval between Date of Final Separation and Date of
of Filing Petition for Divorce

INT 2 = Interval between Date of Filing Petition for Divorce
and Date of Seeking Counseling

CLIN = Clinician

REFS — Referral Source

FIN = Individual Financial Resources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

151

Table 4.20.——Pearson Product-Moment Correlations of Accept-
ability to Others Scale and Second—Stratum 16PF
Factors with Dependent Measures.

 

 

ATO EXVIA PFANX CORTERTIA INDEP

SOCDES .44* .19 -.25 —.06 -.15
ACO .42* .29 -.26 —.21 -.11
ATO .53* -.60* .18 .11
S-E .64* .36* -.70* .38* .33
EXANX —.49* -.34 .64* —.31 -.34
SADS —.42* -.64* .51* -.34 -.46*
ANX -.28 -.08 .48* -.30 —.18
ADS .47* .32 -.57* .18 .21
PF A .37*

B -.14

C .58*

E .17

F .32

G .14

H .66*

I -.19

L -.41*

M .15

N -.06

O -.58*

Q1 — 05

Q2 -.26

 

 

 

 

152
Table 4.20.—-Continued.
ATO EXVIA PFANX CORTERTIA INDEP
Q3 .25
Q4 —.49*
*Significant at an Alpha level of .01.

ATO
EXVIA
PFANX

I) ll ll

CORTERIA

INDEP

SOCDES

ACO

S-E

EXANX

SADS

ANX

ADS

PF A through PF Q
SD Roles

ll 11 II II II II II

4

H II

 

Legend

Acceptability to Others Scale

Invia vs. Exvia Second-Stratum Factor

Adjustment vs. Anxiety Second—Stratum
Factor

Pathemia vs. Cortertia Second-Stratum
Factor

Subduedness vs. Independence Second-
Stratum Factor

Social Desirability Scale

Acceptance of Others Scale

Self—Esteem Scale

Existential Anxiety Scale

Social Avoidance and Distress Scale

Anxiety Checklist

Adjustment to Divorce Scale

16PF Personality Factors

Semantic Differential Role Categories

 

 

 

 

 

 

153
Table 4.20.——Continued.
S.D. Roles ATO EXVIA PFANX CORTERTIA INDEP
Intellectually .59* .38* -.68* .36* .32
Single Person .48* .33 —.51* .25 .22
Goal Setter .56* .37* -.64* .30 .43*
Sexually .46* .18 —.51* .11 .09
Spiritually .55* .33 -.57* .21 .23
Employee .32 —.02 —.29 .005 .01
Host/Hostess .52* .41* -.43* .14 .09
Sportsperson .38* .20 -.54* .40* .32
Friend .63* .13 -.47* .07 .05
Disciplinarian .69* .358* —.39* .14 —.03
Homemaker .41* .28 -.50* .20 .13
Now with Former .28 .04 -.31 .008 .004
Spouse '
Parent .68* .54* —.48* .31 .26
Was with Former .18 —.001 —.18 -.12 -.03
Spouse
Social Situations .65* .54* —.62* .37* .41*
Meeting Expenses .46* .13 -.31 -.042 -.12

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .01.

 

 

   

 

154

more positive as people made more positive adjustment to
their divorce experiences, and that time—limited, individual,
self—concept based psychotherapy facilitated the development
of these more positive self-perceptions.

The second-stratum factors of the 16PF were statis—
tically analyzed using the 2 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA and
the Pearson product—moment correlation coefficient procedures.
The weights and constants applied to the sixteen primary
trait factors of the 16PF which derived the four second—
stratum factors are presented in Appendix P. The means, F
values, and associated probabilities for the ANOVA procedure
are presented in Table 4.21. Examination of the results of
the ANOVAs indicated that two of the factors warranted close
evaluation. The Invia vs. Exvia factor assesses people on
the introversion—extroversion dimension. The results of
the ANOVA indicated that there was a significant pretest/
posttest main effect, but that the pretest/posttest by
experimental/control interaction was not significant.
Examination of the mean scores showed that the experimental
group moved in the direction of extroversion over time, but
that the control group also moved, although much more
modestly, in the same direction. This movement by the con-
trol group blunted the argument that the differences found
in the experimental group over time could be attributed to

treatment effect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

155

 

.OO. no HO>OH OOOHO am pm HOOOHOHOOHO4

 

 

O0.0 mo.m wauHmom
Hm.m mm.O umouosm
dsouw Houucou msouw HOHCOEHHOQNM

 

WQHOOW COGS

 

Nmm. Ooo. OO.H Howwwm CH0: HOHHQOU\HOHGOEHmexm
Omo. mm.m OO.H coHpomHoucH HOHucOU\HOHCOEHHomxm HQ Hmmhwmom\Hmopoum
ONOO. ON.HH OO.H Hownmm OHM: Hmmnpmoo\umwumno
NHHHHanoom
HcOHmHo>OHuxmv AsonHO>OHHcHV
mH>xm .m> OH>2H "HOHOOM
m m .w.p OOQOHHO> mo moouoom

 

.mmOH mo mHowoom ESHOHHOIOCOUOO How w¢>oz4 mo NHOEESOII.HN.O OHQOB

11111111111111111111111111111111LHHHHullll-IIIIIIL

 

 

156

 

.OO. Ho HO>OH OOOHO H8 H8 HOOOHHHOOHOO

Om.O hm.m HOOHHmom
mw.O OH.O HmopmHm
11111111111111111111111111111111111111

QSOHO HOHQOEHHOQNM

OBOHO Houpcou
mouoom coo:

 

 

Now. OOO. OO.H Hoome cHoZ HOHHGOO\HOH¢OEHHOQNM

 

 

 

«NHO. Om.O OO.H soHuomHousH HOHHQOO\HanoEHHomxm >9 pmouvmom\pwououm
OOOOO.V ON.NH OO.H Howmwm aHms Hmouumoo\umonwuo
OH H
11111111111111
OHOchfl owoom coum Hoosamowp¢ "Howonm
m M .w.p oocOHHO> mo moousom

 

.OmsaHuaoO11.HN.O OHOOH

 

Nm.m

mm.m

mm.m

NO.m

Hmouumom

HmOHOHm

 

QSOHO HOHHCOU

ODOHO HopsoEHHomxm

 

 

monoom coo:

 

 

mHm. nmo.H OO.H Hoommm CH8: HOHHCOU\HOHCOEHHomxm
W won. NOH. OO.H coHHomHOHcH HOHHCOO\HOH£OEHHomxm SQ pumppmom\HOOHoum
l
OHm. Omo. 0O.H Hoowwm GHOE HmOHumom\umopoum
HO>OH o>HH mHCch cmch
IHQOOO Hm mEoH HOSHOH wHoow
190nm mOHpcmc .pommOHQop
.mmwsHHOHO .OOHOHH
.mmocHomeoso OH H Imoum .hOOOE
OHHHOHHOO OHoom cmpm OHEOQHOH "Houomm
M M .O.p wocmHHO> mo moouoom

 

.OOOOHHOOO11.HN.O mHnme

 

158

 

Om.m

mv.m

 

moouo Houusoo

 

Oa.m

Nm.m

ummpumom

umououm

msouw HoncoEHHomxm

 

 

 

meOUm COGS

Ohm. ONO. OO.H
mmH. OH.N OO.H
Hoo. MO.m OO.H

m>Huoon0Hm .UHumeoo

poommm CHM: HOHHQOO\HchoEHHomxm

soHpomHOHsH Houpcoo\HanoEHHomxm SQ Hmoupmom\Hmopoum

 

HOOOOO aHmz Hmmuumomxnmoumno

 

.HnoHonH .ucoosommch OH
oocmosomoocH osoom copm mmospooonom "Houonm
m m .w.p wosOHHw> mo mOUHoom

 

.OOOOHHOOO11.HN.O OHome

 

 

 

 

159

The results regarding the Adjustment vs. Anxiety
second-stratum factor indicated a significant pretest/post-
test main effect and a significant pretest/posttest by
experimental/control interaction. Examination of the mean
scores showed that the interaction effect was in the direc—
tion of reduction of anxiety and movement toward adjustment
over time. These results seemed to provide strong supportive
evidence regarding the earlier identified effects of treat-
ment on level of anxiety. Additionally, however, these
results suggested that time—limited, individual, self-
concept based psychotherapy not only reduced anxiety in
divorcing persons, but also facilitated a movement toward
adjustment in those persons.

The results of the ANOVA procedure performed indi-
cated that no treatment effect seemed to be involved in
either the Pathemia vs. Cortertia factor or the Subduedness
vs. Independence factor. Interestingly, examination of the
mean scores indicated that the subjects involved in the
present study did not differ from the theoretical mean of
the total population (sten = 5.5). Thus, it may be that
these factors of personality structure are not involved in
the upheaval caused by the divorce experience.

Examination of the Pearson product—moment correla—
tions between the second—stratum factors of the 16PF and
the demographic variables (presented in Table 4.20) revealed

a consistent pattern of nonsignificant relationships.

 

 

160

The only significant correlation was between the number of
previous marriages and the Pathemia vs. Cortertia factor.
This inverse relationship suggested that people who had been
previously married a number of times tended to be more
moody, frustrated, and depressed than people who had not
been previously married. The lack of significant relation-
ships between the second—stratum factors and the demographic
variables suggested that those factors reflected personality
traits characteristic of most people, rather than subgroups
of individuals.

The Pearson product—moment correlation coefficients
between the second-stratum factors of the 16PF and the other
dependent measures were presented in Table 4.20. Correla—
tions were not computed between the second—stratum factors
of the l6PF and the primary trait factors of the 16PF
because the second—stratum factors were derived from the
primary factors in the first place.

Examination of the Pearson correlations obtained
between the second-stratum factors of the l6PF and the
dependent measures indicated that the Adjustment vs. Anxiety
factor correlated significantly with measures of overall
adjustment to divorce, anxiety, and all of the aspects of
the self-concept except acceptance of others. The Invia
vs. Exvia factor correlated significantly with measures of
self—esteem, social avoidance and distress, acceptability to

others, and only six of the 16 role categories of the

 

 

 

161

semantic differential. This second—stratum factor, concerned
with introversion—extroversion, did not seem to be related

to level of anxiety, acceptance of others, hopelessness and
purposelessness in life, or overall adjustment to divorce.
The Pathemia vs. Cortertia factor and Subduedness vs. Inde—
pendence factor were seen to be correlated significantly
with almost none of the other dependent measures. Of
passing interest were the correlations between the role
categories "intellectually“ and "Sportsperson" and the
Pathemia vs. Cortertia factor. Cattell, Eber, and Tatsuoka
(1970) indicated that this factor was concerned with
"cortical alertness," and the degree to which people
responded cognitively rather than affectively. These results
suggested that individuals who perceived themselves in
favorable ways, either intellectually or as sportspersons,
also tended to be more cortically alert; that is, cognitively
interacting with their environment.

The results just reviewed indicated that the Adjust-
ment vs. Anxiety factor was highly correlated with the other
dependent measures, the Invia vs. Exvia factor was signifi—
cantly correlated with a number of the measures, and the
other two factors were correlated significantly with almost
none of the other measures. These results suggested that
the Subduedness vs. Independence factor and the Pathemia vs.
Cortertia factor had very little relationship with aspects

of the self-concept, or with the divorce adjustment process.

 

 

 

162

These results were supported by the lack of treatment
effects regarding these dimensions. The limited number of
correlations of the Invia vs. Exvia factor with the other
dependent measures suggested that this dimension, although
related to self—esteem and social participation, was not
related to the overall adjustment process. This seemed to
be a rather interesting result, and suggested that extro—
verted people did not necessarily have an easier adjustment
process than did introverted people. These results will be
discussed in more detail in Chapter V.

The results obtained regarding the Adjustment vs.
Anxiety factor suggested that this factor was reflective of
many of the same constructs observed by the other dependent
measures. It would seem to be significant that this factor,
which was purported to be a single factor assessment of
broadly based adjustment, correlated significantly with the
measure of overall adjustment to divorce, and also reflected
significant improvement as the result of treatment.

The final issue to be addressed in the analysis of
data focuses on the resources used by divorcing persons for
support and assistance. Subjects were asked to indicate on
the face sheet of the pretest (Appendix A) which resources
they need for support and assistance during their adjustment
processes. Additionally, they were asked to identify which
Of those same resources they thought were available to

them for support and assistance. This was done in order to

 

 

 

 

163

observe the differences, if any, between the subjects' per—
ceptions of available resources, and their actual use of
those resources. The inclusion of this aspect of data col—
lection was based on the desire to identify the extent to
which divorcing individuals drew support and assistance from
resources external to themselves, and to identify those
resources most frequently used.

The t-test procedure was used to compare the experi-
mental group subjects with control group subjects both at
the pretest and the posttest. The mean scores, t—values,
and associated probabilities are presented in Table 4.22.
Additionally the t—test procedure was used to compare the
experimental group subjects over time. The mean scores, t—
values and associated probabilities are presented in
Table 4.23. Differences were considered statistically
significant if the resultant t—values were larger than the
tabled t—value at alpha = .10. Examination of the results
indicated that the control group subjects tended to see
relatives as being more available than did experimental
group subjects at the pretest. Additionally, control group
subjects tended to see bars as being more available for
support and assistance than did experimental group subjects
at the posttest. The results also indicated that there
were no significant differences between the experimental
group subjects and COntrol group subjects in their EES of

any of the resources, either at pretest or posttest. The

 

 

164

 

 

 

 

 

NNH. OO.H1 HNO. OOO. OHN. ON.H1 OsO. OON. Housoo
OOOO. ON.H1 HOO. NOH. ONN. ON.H1 OON. OOO. mHmm
OSN. NH.H1 mwN. NOH. OOO. SS.1 OMN. NOH. whoHO
Oom. OO.H1 mmm. OOH. OSN. NH.H1 OON. NOH. msoHuONHcmmHo HOHoom
OO.H O OMN. ONN. OOO. SS. NOH. OMN. HwSonEm
OOH. Om. ONO. ONO. OON. HO. OOO. HOO. OOONOHosm soHHOm
OOO. mm. OOO. Nmm. OO.H O Smm. Smw. mOcOHHm
mOm. No.1 mHO. OSv. *vOO. Hm.H1 OHS. ONO. mm>Humem
OO.H O HOS. HOS. OSN. NH.H OHS. SmO. mHHemm
oo.H O ONO. ONO. wOS. Om. ONO. OSv. wmdomm HOEHOM
>4m
QSOHO moouw QSOHU moouw
.m osHm>1H Houucoo HmucoEHmexm .m OSHO>IH Houucou HmucoEHHomxm
mcmoz memo:
Hmoume

Hmmnumoo

 

.umoppmom pom Hmououm
otp pm Show .oocoumHmm< paw HHOQmom H0O wooHDOmom mo ow: pom SHHHHQOHHO>< mo wuHomom
.mwooflnsm mDOHO HOHHGOU pom HmucwEHHomxm OQHHOOEOO How omawwooum HOOHIH mo SHOEEam11.NN.O OHQmB

 

 

165

 

 

oosmumem< was Huommom How UmmD mOOHSOmom n
oucmumHmm¢ pom HHommsm How OHQOHHO>< moossomom H

.OH. no Ho>OH OOOHO :8 H8

3%
><m "OQOOOH

HOOUHHHOOHO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

OOm. OO.H mmm. OOH. OOH. Om.H1 me. OOH. SUHDQU
OOO. Om. Svo. moo. mow. OO.H1 NOH. Svo. mem
mmm. OO.H O SOO. MNm. OO.H o Svo. mQSHU
OOm. Om. Svo. mOo. MNm. OO.H o Svo. OCOHHONHCOOHO HOHoom
OO.H o NOH. NOH. omm. Sm. mOo. OOH. HONOHQEM
Oom. SO. OMN. mmm. ONm. OO. mmN. me. wwoonmEm BoHHmm
mmH. OO.H OOO. Smm. OHS. Sm. HOS. OOO. mocOHHm
ONm. OO. mwN. Hmm. OOH. Om.H1 Hmm. OOH. mw>HumHom
OOS. mm.1 OHS. OOO. COS. Hm. HSm. OHO. SHHEmm
OO.H O OOH. OOH. MMS. vm. OMN. mmN. Omdomm HOEHOM
Om
moouo QSOHO QSOHO msouw
.m ODHO>IH HOHucou HmucoaHmexm .m mon>1u Houpcoo HoucoEHHomxm
memo: mcmoz
umouuwom Hwopwum

 

.poocHuq0011.NN.v OHQOB

 

 

 

 

166

Table 4.23.-—Summary of t-test Procedure for Comparing
Pretest/Posttest Differences in Experimental
Group Subjects on Their Reports of Resources
Available and Used for Support and Assistance.

 

Pretest Posttest

 

 

 

Means Means tavalues E
RAV
Former Spouse .476 .428 .30 .764
Family .857 .761 .77 .444
Relatives .428 .476 ~.30 .764
Friends .857 .952 -l.04 .305
Fellow Employees .381 .476 —.61 .544
Employer .238 .238 0 1.00
Social Organizations .142 .190 —.40 .688
Clubs .142 .142 0 1.00
Bars .095 .142 -.47 .644
Church .285 .333 —.33 .746
RU
Former Spouse .285 .190 .71 .481
Family .619 .666 —.31 .755
Relatives .190 .381 -l.36 .180
Friends .809 .857 —.40 .688
Fellow Employees .381 .333 .31 .755
Employer .190 .142 .40 .688
Social Organizations .047 .095 -.59 .560
Clubs .047 .047 0 1.00
Bars .047 .095 —.59 .560
Church .190 .190 0 1.00
Legend

RAV = Resources Available for Support and Assistance

RU = Resources Used for Support and Assistance

 

 

 

167

results also indicated that the experimental group subjects
did not differ significantly on any of the observed dimen—
sions over time. Thus, it would seem that overall adjust—
ment to the divorce experience, which was demonstrated
earlier to have been facilitated by time—limited therapy,
was not manifested by an increased use of community and
interpersonal resources. The implications of these results
will be discussed in the broader context of all of the
results in Chapter V.

The resources available (RAV) and resources used
(RU) were rank ordered from most frequently to least fre-
quently cited. These results are presented in Table 4.24.
Inspection of the results revealed that the categories

"friends" and "family" were seen most frequently as resources

 

available and used by both experimental group subjects and
control group subjects. This pattern held for both the
pretest and posttest. Both groups of subjects tended to
see all of the categories as being more available to them
at the time of the posttest. This increase has been seen
earlier not to be statistically significant. The pattern,
however, perhaps reflects a slowly developing increase in
receptivity to community and interpersonal resources. The
control group subjects tended to draw support and assistance
from their churches more than the experimental group sub—
jects. Both experimental group subjects and control group

subjects tended to make less use of their former spouses

 

 

 

 

168

Table 4.24.——Rank Ordering of Resources Available and Resources Used at
Pretest and Posttest, for Both the Experimental and Control

Groups.

 

Pretest

Posttest

 

Resources Available:

1.

8.

Friends

Family

Former Spouse
Relatives

Fellow Employees
Church

Employer

Social Organizations
Clubs

Bars

Resources Used:

1.

2.

0

Friends

Family

. Fellow Employees

. Former Spouse

Relatives

Church

Employer

Social Organizations

Clubs

Experimental Group

.857

.857

.476

.428

.381

.238

.142

.142

.095

w
.

m

N

. Friends
. Family

. Fellow Employees

Relatives

. Former Spouse

Church

. Employer

Social Organizations
Clubs

Bars

. Friends

Family

Relatives

. Fellow Employees

Church

Former Spouse
Employer

Social Organizations

Bars

.952

.761

.476

.476

.428

.333

.238

.190

.142

.142

.666

.381

.333

.095

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.24.-—Continued.

169

 

 

Pretest Posttest
Control Group
Resources Available:
1. Friends .857 1. Friends .904
2 Family .714 2. Family .761
Relatives 714 3 Relatives .619
3 Church 476 4. Church .571
4 Former Spouse .428 5 Fellow Employees .428
5 Fellow Employees 333 Former Spouse .428
6 Social Organizations .285 6. Bars .381
7 Clubs .238 7 Social Organizations .333
Bars .238 8. Clubs .285
8. Employer .142 9. Employer .238
Resources Used:
1. Friends .761 1. Family .714
2. Family .571 2. Friends .666
3. Church .381 3 Church .333
Relatives .381 4. Relatives .285
4. Fellow Employees .285 5. Fellow Employees 238
5. Former Spouse .238 6. Former Spouse .190
6. Bars .142 7. Employer .142
7. Employer .095 8. Social Organizations .047
8. Social Organizations 0 Bars .047
9. Clubs 0 9 Clubs 0

 

 

 

 

 

170

for support and assistance over time. This would seem to
reflect part of the disengagement process involved in the
adjustment to divorce. Of interest was the fact that this
reduction in use of the former spouse took place despite
subjects‘ fairly constant perception over time that their
former spouses were available to them for support and
assistance.

The correlations among RAV, RU and the demographic
variables are presented in Table 4.25. Correlations were
considered significant if their resultant probabilities were
less than Alpha = .01. Examination of these correlations
revealed few significant relationships, and of those only
two appeared to have particular meaning. It was observed
that men sought support and assistance from fellow employees
more frequently than did women. It also was observed that
individuals whose spouses were seeking the divorce drew
support and assistance from their former spouses and went
to bars more frequently than did people who were seeking

the divorce themselves.

Summary
A considerable amount of data was collected in the
course of this study, and many results were obtained. It
was determined that time—limited, individual, self—concept
based psychotherapy improved particular aspects of the self—
concept. The therapy experience led to the improvement of

self-esteem, the reduction of hopelessness and purposelessness

 

 

 

171

 

OH.

wwwhonEm SoHme

So. wUGwHHm
OH.1 mo>Hpmem
mo.| SHHEMh
OO. wmdomm sthom
"womb mounsowom

HO. flousgo
v0.1 mamm
SO.: wQDHU
No.1 mCOHuMNHcmouo HMHoow
mH.I nwWOHmsm
HH. wwo>0HmEm 30Hme
mH.| wpcoHum
VH.I mwbHuwHom
run... 323
HH.: wmsomm Hmfiuom

umHQmHHm>< mmoHDOmom

 

 

BmDU QHHEU mdzmmm

 

.mUcwwmnmmd mvcm HHOQHHDW How 60w. meHgomwm .mVCM
_D _ _ z. _ I .H COWHmmmll. . w m
w m Hm>¢ WOUHDOWOM US“ mm QMHHMD U—CQMHOOfiU—wo m OEHM mcownwm wHHfiv. UCQEOE “USCG AH mN V _Q .—
. . .

 

 

 

172

.HO. mo Ho>oH manm so no osmoHMHumHma

|||IiII|||sI|II|iII|II|II||IIII||I|

 

oo.- oH.- Hm. Ho.- om.u so. oo.a Ho.1 so. as. ma. so. sonszo
so. oH.- oH.- mo. mo. .ms. mo. mo. NH. mo.| SH.» mm. whom
Ho.l NH.I ma.p oH.- so.- sa.- So.- mH.- so.u Ho.l mo. Ho. mnaHo
«mm. NH.I ma.n oH.- oH.a mo. em. No.u So.- ooo.u om.u so. maofiumunamouo Hmfloom
Ho.l NH. ms. so. mo.| ma. Ho.- HN.- mo.l om.» oo.- sH.- stoamsm

 

ZHm mhmm ZHHU N BZH H BZH Q>HQ BmDU DHHmU mgmmm JEANS xmm Maud.

 

 

.omsceuqooul.mm.s mHnme

 

 

y-

 

*7 ‘ “573W

 

 

173

in life, the reduction of social avoidance and distress, and
an improvement in assessment of a number of life roles.

The time-limited therapy also was shown to reduce anxiety
and, perhaps most importantly of all the results, it was
demonstrated that time—limited therapy significantly improved
the overall adjustment processes of divorcing persons. By
contrast, the hypotheses that time—limited therapy would
improve acceptance of others, and general personality adjust-
ment were not supported.

The analysis of data established that most of the
measured aspects of the self—concept were correlated sig-
nificantly in the predicted directions. The measure of
self as accepting of others was not correlated in the pre-

dicted manner with the other aspects of self—concept. The

 

predicted correlations among measures of anxiety, overall
adjustment to divorce, and the measured aspects of the self—
concept were also generally supported. Only four of the

16 primary trait factors of the 16PF were correlated con—
sistently with the other measures. These factors were
factor C, factor H, factor 0, and factor Q4.

The ancillary analysis of data revealed that the
demographic variables correlated only modestly, and those
correlations were in the obvious and expected directions.
Few significant correlations were obtained between the

demographic variables and the dependent measures.

 

 

174

It was observed that subjects who were desiring the
divorce tended to perceive themselves as parents and home—
makers more negatively than did subjects whose spouses were
desiring the divorce. Subjects desiring the divorce did not
differ, however, from subjects whose spouses were seeking
the divorce in level of self—esteem, level of hopelessness
and purposelessness, level of social avoidance and distress,
general personality adjustment, or overall adjustment to
divorce.

The Acceptability to Others scale, a short scale
contained in Fey's Acceptance of Others scale, was shown to
correlate with the other measures of aspects of the self-
cnncept and with overall adjustment to divorce. It also
was demonstrated that time—limited therapy facilitated
more positive self—perceptions of being acceptable to others.

The results obtained from the analysis of data
regarding the second—stratum factors of the 16PF revealed
that the Adjustment vs. Anxiety factor was the only factor
significantly correlated with each of the other dependent
measures, and the only factor which reflected significant
treatment effect. The Invia vs. Exvia factor was seen to
correlate with some of the other dependent measures, and
also reflected a pattern of movement toward increased
extroversion over time for both experimental and control

group subjects.

 

r—ji?" ”m . -

 

 

 

 

 

175

The analysis of data related to the resources used
by subjects for support and assistance revealed that friends
and family were the two most frequently used resources.
Additionally, it was observed that divorcing persons tended
to use their former spouses for support and assistance less
over time, perhaps reflecting an important component of the
adjustment process. It also was observed that men sought
support and assistance from fellow employees more frequently
than did women, and individuals whose spouses were seeking
the divorce drew support and assistance from their former
spouses and went to bars more often than did people who

were seeking the divorce themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION

Discussion

The results obtained in the present study provided
the basis for a number of interesting, and possibly impor—
tant, observations regarding the divorce adjustment process,
time-limited therapy as a viable means of facilitating the
adjustment process, and the relationships among aspects of
the self-concept and the adjustment process. Any observa-
tions derived from this study logically cannot be generalized
to the population of all divorcing persons. It would seem
appropriate, however, to generalize the results to that sub-
population of divorcing persons who choose to seek
counseling assistance in coping with the divorce experience.

It was seen in the review of literature in Chapter II
that presently there is no consensus regarding the character—
istics of divorcing persons and the ways in which the divorce
experience affects them. Many of these demographic char-
acteristics were observed in the present study in order to
add additional weight to this body of information. The
results obtained in this study suggested that the impact of

the divorce experience on aspects of the self-concept,

176

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

177

anxiety, or overall adjustment was not significantly differ—
ent for people who differed in age, sex, length of marriage,
financial status, or whether they or their spouses were
seeking the divorce.

The results of this study also provided evidence
that the impact of the divorce experience was confined in
its scope. It was seen that the general personality struc-
tures of divorcing people were not significantly disrupted
by the divorce experience. Particular components of the
personality structure did seem to be related to aspects of
the self-concept, anxiety, and overall adjustment to the
divorce experience, and seemed to manifest a greater response
to the divorce experience than other components. These
components were level of ego strength, level of threat—
sensitivity, level of insecurity and guilt—proneness, and
level of tense, frustrated, driven functioning. These com—
ponents of the personality structure, however, did not differ
significantly among people based on demographic differences.
These results varied somewhat from some of the observations
of Blair (1970), Hetherington, Cox, and Cox (1977), and
Raschke (1975).

These results suggest that the characteristics of
the divorce experience, rather than the characteristics of
the divorcing individual, tend to shape the impact of that
experience. Many of these characteristics of the divorce
experience were reviewed in Chapter 11. Some of the more

important characteristics were the disruption of habits,

 

 

 

178

disruption of roles which were the vehicles for self—
expression and self—fulfillment, loss of a social system
based on paired relationships, loss of directionality for
one's life, and arousal of feelings of failure, guilt, con—
fusion, anxiety, anger, bitterness, and worthlessness.
These results supported Weiss' (1975) observations that the
common feature of the divorce experience was the loss of
the marriage relationship, which had been the vehicle for
self—expression and self-fulfillment.

The results provided further evidence, however,
that the response to the upheaval of the divorce experience
varied for certain categories of individuals. Younger
peOple tended to wait a longer period of time than older
people, following the final separation, before they filed
petitions for divorce. People married a shorter time tended
to see themselves as worse homemakers than did people
married a longer time. People with more children tended
to seek counseling more quickly than did people with fewer
children. Individuals whose spouses were seeking the
divorce tended to perceive themselves as single persons
more negatively than did persons who were seeking the
divorce themselves. Divorcing persons showed a consider—
able variation in the community and interpersonal resources
used for support and assistance, although friends and
family were used much more frequently than the other
resources. Men turned to fellow employees for support and

assistance more frequently than did women. Individuals

 

 

179

whose spouses were seeking the divorce drew support and
assistance from their former spouses and went to bars more
often than did peeple who were seeking the divorce them-
selves. These differences in response to the impact of the
divorce experience suggest that there may be factors peculiar
to certain groups of individuals that shape their behavior

in particular directions. Future research projects need to
be conducted in order to define more clearly the different
needs of divorcing persons, and the roles those needs play

in the adjustment process. Such investigations may lead to
greater specificity regarding variations in the therapeutic
interventions for different groups of divorcing persons.
Pursuing such future investigations would seem to be appro-
priate based on the results just discussed, and based on the
results regarding the apparent effectiveness of time-limited,
individual, self—concept based psychotherapy in facilitating
adjustment to divorce.

It was demonstrated in the present study that time—
limited therapy can have a tremendous impact on the adjust—
ment processes of divorcing persons. Within this broad and
important finding, however, seems to be a set of finer dis—
criminations that perhaps can teach us much about the
pattern of the adjustment process. The results obtained in
the present study suggested that particular aspects of the
self-concept were related to one another, adjustment to
divorce, and certain components of general personality

structure. Moreover, it would seem, from an examination of

 

 

 

180

the results, that the time—limited treatment intervention
differentially affected these aspects of the self-concept.
It was demonstrated that the time-limited therapy experi—
ence resulted in a considerable reduction of a sense of hope—
lessness and purposelessness in divorcing persons, and sig—
nificant improvement in self-esteem and self-perceptions in
various roles which behaviorally manifested self. Impor—
tantly, the role category which exhibited the most positive
change as a result of treatment was that of "single person."
By contrast, it was seen that the time—limited treatment
intervention did not result in increased acceptance of
others, and only modestly facilitated the reduction of
social avoidance and distress. Both of these aspects of

the self-concept reflect self in relation to others. It

 

could be argued, perhaps, that this lack of major change in
the social/interpersonal aspects of the self-concept was due
to characteristics of the treatment intervention itself.
Certainly a definitive answer must wait for further research
in this area. The bulk of the evidence from this study,
however, justifies a different interpretation of the results.
It may well be that these results point to a progressive,
sequential adjustment process in which renewed social inter—
action comes about only after divorcing individuals have
reduced the stress in their lives, have redefined and re-
gained a sense of direction and meaning for themselves,
have regained a sense of self-acceptance, and have begun

to define themselves as single, separate individuals.

 

 

 

181

Having begun to move in these positive directions, divorcing
individuals may once again have a sense of who they are and
what they have to offer in an interpersonal and social con—
text.

Past researchers and authors have provided various
schema regarding the adjustment process (Blair, 1970; Fisher,
1974; Hackney, 1975; Kessler, 1975; Krantzler, 1974; Morris
and Prescott, 1975; Weiss, 1975). None of these previous
researchers or authors, however, seemed to have examined
the adjustment process in terms of the apparently sequential
improvement of particular aspects of the self—concept. If,
in fact, this interpretation of the results of this study
is correct, then the implications regarding the process of
the therapeutic intervention are clear. More important,
however, are the implications concerning the expectations
that repeatedly have been placed on divorcing persons to
"get out, have fun, start over, get involved in things."

It may well be that such expectations only serve to sustain
feelings of worthlessness, confusion and anxiety among
divorcing persons—-thus extending the period of adjustment.
Hetherington, Cox, and Cox (1977) noted the flurry of social
activity that seemed to occur during the first year follow-
ing divorce. This high level of activity seemed to abate,
and was followed by a period of withdrawal. This time of
reduced activity eventually was followed by a more satisfying
pattern of social and interpersonal interaction. Napolitane

and Pellegino (1977) also noted this pattern. This pattern

 

 

 

182

of early frenetic social behavior among divorcing persons
may well be the result of social, professional, and inter—
personal pressure to behave in those ways. The results of
the present study would seem to indicate that such pressure
and such behavior are not in the best interests of divorcing
persons. These results suggest that perhaps it would be

far more appropriate if divorcing persons were encouraged
to take time to get used to, and understand themselves in
the context of the new circumstances of their lives. Having
done this without social or interpersonal pressure to do
otherwise, perhaps then the social interaction in which
divorcing persons chose to involve themselves would be more
satisfying.

It was observed earlier that subjects not involved
in the therapy experience tended to perceive themselves
more and more negatively over time in many roles of their
lives. It is unknown from the results of this study what
accounts for this pattern. It may be that many of the
subjects entered the research project before they had
reached their low points in self—evaluation. Regardless
of the reasons for this pattern, however, it would seem
that the extended period of time frequently required for
adjustment to divorce is more understandable in the light
of this combination of sustained negative self—evaluation
and considerable pressure to function socially and inter-

personally in ways unfulfilling to the people involved.

 

 

183

The observations just concluded and the results
previously discussed provide the basis for the conclusion
that time-limited, individual, self—concept based psycho-
therapy can be a significant factor in facilitating adjust—
ment to divorce. The benefit of such a therapeutic inter—
vention would seem to be maximized when provided early in
the adjustment process. Part of the effect of such an
intervention seems to be the interruption of an extended
period of negative self-evaluation. The central component
of the impact of the therapeutic experience, however, seems
to be in helping a divorcing person regain a positive self—
evaluation, begin to reestablish a sense of familiarity and
consistency among the various manifestations of self, and
regain a sense of direction, meaning, and purpose in life,
based on the new realities of his/her life. It has been
suggested that these improvements in self—functioning were
prerequisites to productive and satisfying social inter-
action, and that such interaction could be achieved more
quickly if built upon those prerequisites.

The results obtained from the present study regard-
ing anxiety proved to be particularly interesting. It was
seen earlier that anxiety did not seem to be an integral
component in the social and interpersonal behavior of
divorcing persons. Anxiety, however, was significantly
correlated with self—esteem, assessment of roles, existential
anxiety, and overall adjustment to divorce. It also was

seen that the time-limited therapy experience facilitated

 

 

 

184

a significant reduction in anxiety. These results, would
seem to support the portrayal of the adjustment process
just provided. Thereapeutic focus on reduction of anxiety,
coupled with enhancement of self—esteem, assessment of
roles, and reduction of a sense of hopelessness and purpose-
lessness, would seem to be part of the basis for adjustment
to divorce, and eventual reestablishment of a satisfying
social interaction.

Part of the motivation of friends, peers, and
clinicians in urging divorcing persons to become socially
active may well be based on a desire to help reduce the
anxiety they see in these people. In fact, such efforts
may have the effect of reinforcing negative self-perceptions
when the divorcing individual does not achieve the expected
results. Presently there is little information regarding
the perceptions, feelings, and motivations of friends and
peers toward divorcing persons. Further investigation of
these issues may well provide a more complex understanding
of the dynamics of the social/interpersonal components of
the adjustment-to-divorce process.

A final issue for discussion concerns the avail-
ability and immediacy of therapeutic interventions for
divorcing persons. It was seen earlier that many subjects
in this study sought counseling within a short time follow—
ing filing the petition for divorce. Perhaps part of the
reason for this rather short interval between the filing

of the petition for divorce and seeking counseling was that

 

 

 

 

 

185

all of the community resources which distributed the brochure
for this project, except for Parents Without Partners, were
groups which dealt with divorcing people early in the
divorce process. Yet, blunting this argument is the fact that
no subjects were obtained from Parents Without Partners.
Furthermore, an anticipated process never materialized,
whereby individuals who chose not to involve themselves in
counseling initially, might decide to seek counseling later
in the divorce process. It is unknown whether some peOple
sought counseling through other resources, but it is known
that only two of the 42 subjects entered this research
project at least three months after initially having received
the brochure. There is insufficient information to be able
to draw any firm conclusions, but it is certainly an area
that could be fruitfully explored in subsequent studies.

It appears from the response pattern of the subjects in the
present study that a number of factors must come together

for people to involve themselves in a program designed to
facilitate their adjustments to divorce. It may well be the
case that divorcing people are more able to acknowledge

their need for assistance at certain times in the divorce
process than at other times. Moreover, it probably is the
case that people‘s needs for assistance vary through the
divorce process. These factors may need to converge with an
individual's awareness of available programs, the individual's

economic situation and tranSportation situation, and quite

 

 

 

 

186

possibly the support and interest of an involved friend or
community resource.

Additionally it was seen that those subjects who
had to wait for six weeks prior to beginning therapy were
much less invested and committed to the therapy experience
than those subjects who began therapy immediately. The
control group subjects almost invariably terminated therapy
before the sixth session. As reviewed earlier, there seemed
to be no common factors among these subjects which could
explain this behavior other than the fact that they each
had to wait six weeks before entering therapy. This pattern
of behavior, coupled with the evidence that divorcing per-
sons seem to seek counseling at important points in their
lives, seems to suggest that an important part of the
eventual positive impact of a therapeutic experience is the
immediacy with which the therapy is provided. This would
seem to be an area in which further research profitably could

be conducted.

Limitations

The manner in which the present study was conducted
resulted in a number of limitations. These limitations had
the effects of narrowing the generalizability of the results
and also of providing less than global assessment of the
adjustment processes of divorcing persons. The major limi-
tations of the study are presented below, together with the
implications for future research derived from those limita—

tions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

187

l. A limitation of the present study was that observa-
tions could be made about only that sub—population of
divorcing persons who voluntarily sought assistance in
coping with the divorce experience. Future research needs
to identify the ways, if any, in which divorcing persons
who seek therapeutic help differ from those divorcing per-
sons who do not seek such help. Such research efforts also
need to examine the processes of adjustment of divorcing
persons who do not seek any type of help.

2. A second limitation of the present study concerned
the exclusive use of self—report measures in gathering data.
Future research regarding adjustment to divorce needs to go
beyond the use of self-report measures. Such research pro-
jects should seek to observe the divorce experience and
adjustment process by means of methods such as behavioral
measures, ratings by the therapist, ratings by significant
others in the subjects' lives, and actual records of be-
havior through the use of diaries and journals.

3. A third limitation of the study was that the small
sample size precluded examining the possible differential
effects of the therapeutic intervention with divorcing
persons of varying age, sex, length of marriage, number of
children, person desiring the divorce, or financial status.
It was seen earlier that there was some variation in
response to the impact of the divorce experience among
different groups of divorcing persons. Thus, it would seem

appropriate that future research efforts be directed toward

 

 

 

188

examining the merits of using this therapeutic intervention
with each of these different groups of divorcing persons.

4. A fourth limitation of the study was that none of
the subjects in the study had finalized their divorce. There
are conflicting opinions amOng divorce-related researchers
regarding the role in the adjustment process played by
finalization of the divorce. More attention must be paid
to this issue before all of the questions regarding the
divorce adjustment process can be answered.

5. A final, and major, limitation of the present study
was that the long-term effects of the time-limited, indi—
vidual, self—concept based psychotherapeutic intervention
were not observed. Certainly a critically important measure
of any therapeutic intervention designed to facilitate
adjustment to divorce must be, in the end, whether or not
the effects of treatment were sustained over time. The
results of this study have demonstrated that time-limited
therapy did lead to significant improvement of a number of
aspects of the self—concept and overall adjustment to divorce.
Future research efforts now need to be directed toward
observing the longer—term effects of such treatment inter—
ventions, and whether or not such effects, if sustained,
lead to a reduced period of time required for adjustment to

the divorce experience.

 

 

 

189

Implications for Future Research

The present study has provided considerable infor-
mation regarding the divorce adjustment process, time—
limited therapy designed to aid in the adjustment process,
and the relationships among certain aspects of the self—
concept, anxiety, general personality adjustment, and over-
all adjustment to divorce. The implications for future
research drawn from these results are presented.

1. The present study was the first experimental research
project, known to the author, that was designed to examine
the effects of a therapeutic intervention on the adjustment
processes of divorcing persons. The results suggested that
time—limited, individual, self-concept based psychotherapy
did significantly facilitate the adjustment processes of
divorcing persons. This conclusion paves the way for subse-
quent research efforts designed to compare the relative
strengths of varying therapeutic approaches and theoretical
models. It would seem relevant and important to identify the
most effective ways of improving and shortening the adjustment
processes of divorcing persons, particularly in light of the
fact that many divorcing persons seek help from a broad range
of alternatives. Of particular value would be comparisons
of the effects of time—limited therapy with the effects of
long-term therapy, especially in terms of the quality and
permanence of the effects on the adjustment process. It
also would be valuable to examine the effects of treatment

interventions based on when in the divorce experience they

 

 

190

were provided. Finally the results obtained in the present
study suggest that it would be valuable to examine the
effects of varying therapeutic approaches on the social
interaction component in the overall adjustment processes
of divorcing persons.

2. A crucial area for future research concerns the
sequential, self—concept based model of the divorce adjust—
ment process advanced in this study. It was suggested that
social/interpersonal participation is renewed in a satisfying
way by divorcing persons only after they have regained
positive self—esteem, have redefined and regained a sense
of direction and meaning for themselves, have begun to per—
ceive themselves as single, separate individuals, and have
begun to understand and perceive some self—consistency for
themselves in the contexts of the new circumstances of their
lives. This View of the process of adjustment certainly
needs examination and validation.

3. If the model regarding the adjustment process just
reviewed is correct, then considerable reeducation of
society and the professional community needs to take place.

A commonly held view among both professional and non—
professional people is that divorcing people should become
socially active. This is urged on divorcing people in many
subtle and blatant ways. The conclusions drawn in this
study suggest that that may be detrimental to the adjust—

ment processes of divorcing persons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

191

It may be far more appropriate for professional and
lay peOple involved with divorcing persons to be tolerant,
supportive, and understanding of their needs for privacy,
withdrawal, and introspection. This tolerance and under-
standing perhaps would have the effect of helping to reduce
the amount of conflict and time involved in the adjustment
process for many people.

4. Presently there is little information regarding the
perceptions, feelings, and motivations of friends and peers
toward divorcing persons. Investigation of these issues
may well provide a more complex understanding of such per—
ceptions and motivations. Such knowledge would be invalu-
able in working to increase awareness of and acceptance of
the needs of divorcing persons to have time and privacy to
understand and define themselves within the contexts of
their lives following separation and divorce.

5. The aspects of the self—concept which were examined,
except for self as accepting of others, were seen to be
correlated significantly with one another, anxiety, and
overall adjustment to divorce. General features of the
personality were shown not to be differentially affected by
the divorce experience, or related to aspects of the self-
concept or overall adjustment to divorce. These results
support the previously advanced hypothesis that the divorce
experience has its primary impact on aspects of the self—
concepts of divorcing persons. It also was seen that groups

of divorcing persons varied in their responses to the trauma

 

 

 

 

 

192

to these aspects of the self—concept. Further research
needs to be conducted to define more clearly the different
needs of divorcing persons, how those needs shape their
responses to the upheaval in their lives, and the roles
those needs play in their adjustment processes.

6. The semantic differential appeared to provide
interesting and sensitive discriminations in the present
study. The use of this instrument in longitudinal studies
perhaps would make it possible to identify more clearly
which roles are affected when and to what extent in the
divorce process. Such information, coupled with information
gained from the previously suggested areas of further
research, perhaps would contribute to a more complete and
complex understanding of the divorce adjustment process
than presently is available.

7. The Adjustment to Divorce Scale (ADS) was constructed
for use in the present study as a measure of OVerall adjust-
ment to divorce. An internal consistency reliability coeffi-
cient of .89 was obtained on the sample in this study.
Moreover, the ADS was shown to correlate significantly with
measures of self—esteem, existential anxiety, social avoid-

ance and distress, assessment of roles, and anxiety. These

 

preliminary observations of the instrument suggest that it
has merit as a measure of adjustment to divorce. Much more

work now needs to take place with the instrument in order

 

 

 

193

to properly establish its reliability and validity as a

measure of adjustment to divorce.

Conclusion

It was demonstrated in the present study that
measures of previously identified aspects of the self—
concept, excluding self as accepting of others, were corre-
lated significantly with one another, anxiety, and overall
adjustment to divorce. It was seen that general features
of the personality were not differentially affected by the
treatment intervention, and were not generally related to
aSpects of the self—concept or overall adjustment to divorce.
The primary research question of the present study was
supported because it was demonstrated that time-limited,
individual, self—concept based psychotherapy facilitated
adjustment to divorce. Closer examination of the correla-
tions and the effects of treatment led to the conclusion
that social interaction was a manifestation of self which
seemed to be dependent on, and followed in the adjustment
process, divorcing persons' having begun to regain positive
self-esteem, having begun to redefine a sense of direction
and meaning for their lives, having begun to perceive them—
selves as single, separate individuals, and having begun to
achieve some consistency in self-perceptions in the con—
texts of the new circumstances of their lives. The impli—
cations of this View of the divorce adjustment process were

discussed.

 

 

 

 

 

194

A fairly extensive array of secondary results also
was obtained in the present study. These results provided
supportive evidence for the primary research questions.
Some of the more important results showed that positive
adjustment to divorce was correlated significantly with
increased perceptions of self as a single person. More-
over, divorcing persons making good adjustments to divorce
tended to disengage from their former spouses over time.

It also was seen that divorcing persons tended to gain
support and assistance from friends and family far more often
than from any other resource.

Finally, the results of the present study provided
preliminary evidence that the Adjustment to Divorce Scale
was a reliable and valid measure of adjustment to divorce.

It was recommended that more rigorous examination of this
instrument take place in order to establish its merits as

a measure of adjustment to divorce.

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A

FACE SHEET FOR THE PRETEST PACKET

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A

FACE SHEET FOR THE PRETEST PACKET

 

 

 

NAME: BIRTHDATE:

AGE: SEX: LENGTH OF MARRIAGE:

DATE OF FINAL SEPARATION: DATE OF PETITION FOR DIVORCE:
PERSON DESIRING DIVORCE: NUMBER OF PREVIOUS MARRIAGES:
NUMBER OF CHILDREN: CUSTODIAL PARENT:

OCCUPATION: HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE:

 

 

 

TITLES OF DIVORCE-RELATED BOOKS YOU HAVE RECENTLY READ:

 

 

 

 

Resources available to you for Resources used by you for support
support and assistance: and assistance:

1. former spouse 1. former spouse

2. family 2. family

3. relatives 3. relatives

4. friends 4. friends

5. fellow employees 5. fellow employees

6. employer 6. employer . .

7. social organizations 7. soc1al organizations
8. clubs 8. clubs

9. 9. bars
10. church 10. church

195

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

ROSENBERG'S SELF—ESTEEM SCALE

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

ROSENBERG'S SELF-ESTEEM SCALE

NAME:

Below there is a list of statements about yourself or your

beliefs. For each statement you are to indicate the extent

to which you personally agree with the statement. Read each

item carefully. Below each statement circle the word or

phrase which best indicates your agreement or disagreement

with that statement.

1.

I feel that I'm a person of worth, at least on an
equal basis with others.

strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree

I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree

All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree

I am able to do things as well as most other people.
strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree

I feel I do not have much to be proud of.

strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree

I take a positive attitude toward myself.

strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree

 

 

 

 

10.

 

197

On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
strongly disagree/d1sagree/agree/strongly agree
I wish I could have more respect for myself.
strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strong1y agree
I certainly feel useless at times.

strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree
At times I think I am no good at all.

strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

WATSON AND FRIEND'S SOCIAL AVOIDANCE

AND DISTRESS SCALE

 

APPENDIX C

WATSON AND FRIEND'S SOCIAL AVOIDANCE

AND DISTRESS SCALE

NAME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Below there is a list of statements about

T F 1.
T F 2
T F 3.
T F 4.
T F 5.
T F 6.
T F 7.
T F 8.
T F 9.
T F 10
T F 11.

yourself or your beliefs about your life.
Beside each statement there is a T (for
true) and an F (for false). For each state-
ment circle either the T or the F. Do not
circle both.

I feel relaxed even in unfamiliar social
situations.

I try to avoid situations which force me to be
very sociable.

It is easy for me to relax when I am with
strangers.

I have no particular desire to avoid people.
I often find social occasions upsetting.

I usually feel calm and comfortable at social
occasions.

I am usually at ease when talking to someone of
the opposite sex.

I try to avoid talking to people unless I know
them well.

If the chance comes to meet new people, I often
take it.

I often feel nervous or tense in casual
get—togethers in which both sexes are present.

I am usually nervous with people unless I know
them well.

198

 

 

 

 

 

199

T F 12. I usually feel relaxed when I am with a group
of people.

T F 13. I often want to get away from people.

T F 14. I usually feel uncomfortable when I am in a group
of people I don't know.

T F 15. I usually feel relaxed when I meet someone for
the first time.

T F 16. Being introduced to people makes me tense and
nervous.

T F 17. Even though a room is full of strangers, I may
enter it anyway.

T F 18. I would avoid walking up and joining a large
group of people.

T F 19. When my superiors want to talk with me, I talk
willingly.

T F 20. I often feel on edge when I am with a group of
people.

T F 21. I tend to withdraw from people.

T F 22. I don't mind talking to people at parties or
social gatherings.

 

T F 23. I am seldom at ease in a large group of people.

 

T F 24. I often think up excuses in order to avoid social
engagements.

T F 25. I sometimes take the responsibility for intro—
ducing people to each other.

T F 26. I try to avoid formal social occasions.

T F 27. I usually go to whatever social engagements
I have.

T F 28. I find it easy to relax with other people.

Copyright 1969 by the American Psychological Association.
Reprinted by permission.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

FEY'S ACCEPTANCE OF OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

FEY'S ACCEPTANCE OF OTHERS

NAME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Below there is a number of statements which

might be used to describe people. Please
indicate, for each statement, how well that
statement characterizes you—-how often you
feel it is true. Read each item carefully,
and then circle the word or phrase below
each statement that best reflects your
opinion.

People are too easily led.

very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

I like people I get to know.

very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

People these days have pretty low moral standards.

very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

Most people are pretty smug about themselves, never
really facing their bad points.

very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always
I can be comfortable with nearly all kinds of people.
very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

All people can talk about these days, it seems, is
movies, TV, and foolishness like that.

very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

201

People get ahead by using "pull," and not because of
what they know.

very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

If you once start doing favors for people, they'll
just walk all over you.

very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always
People are too self-centered.
very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

People are always dissatisfied and hunting for
something new.

very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always
With many people you don't know how you stand.
very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

You've probably got to hurt someone if you're going to
make something out of yourself.

very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always
People really need a strong, smart leader.

very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

I enjoy myself most when I am alone, away from people.
very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

I wish more people would be more honest with you.
very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

I enjoy going with a crowd.

very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

In my experience, people are pretty stubborn and
unreasonable.

very rare1y/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

I can enjoy being with people whose values are very
different from mine.

very rare1y/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

 

 

202

19. Everybody tries to be nice.
very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

20. The average person is not very well satisfied with
himself.

very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/a1most always

21. People are quite critical of me.
very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

22. I feel "left out" as if people don't want me around.
very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

23. People seem to respect my opinion about things.
very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

24. People seem to like me.
very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

25. Most people seem to understand how I feel about
things.

very rarely/rarely/sometimes/often/almost always

COpyright 1955 by the American Psychological Association.
Reprinted by permission.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E

GOOD AND GOOD'S EXISTENTIAL

ANXIETY SCALE

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E

GOOD AND GOOD'S EXISTENTIAL

ANXIETY SCALE

NAME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Below there is a list of statements about

T F 1
T F 2.
T F 3
T F 4
T F 5
T F 6
T F 7.
T F 8.
T F 9.

yourself or your beliefs about your life.
Beside each statement there is a T (for
true) and an F (for false). For each state-
ment circle either the T or the F. Do not
circle both.

I frequently have the feeling that my life has
little or no purpose.

I mostly feel bored and indifferent by what is
going on around me.

I find life exciting and challenging.

I often feel that my accomplishments are pretty
worthless.

I usually feel that I am merely existing, not
really living.

I generally feel that it is useless to discuss
things with others because they just never
really understand.

I feel that I have more to look forward to in
life than most others.

My daily activities mostly seem to be rather
pointless.

I generally feel depressed when I think about
the future.

203

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

 

204

I have never found any type of work that I really
enjoy.

My feelings don't seem to mean anything to
anyone else.

I find religion to be rather empty.

I feel that it is useless to try to convince
anyone else of anything.

I often feel that I have little to look forward
to.

I do not feel that life is meaningless.

I just never seem to enjoy things the way others
seem to.

I generally feel that I am getting nowhere, no
matter how much effort I put forth.

I feel that I have found more meaning in life
than most others have.

I rarely take a strong interest in what I am
reading or studying.

 

There is nothing in my past life that is parti—
cularly worth remembering.

I feel that my life is of no real importance
to anyone.

I can always find something to do that I really
enjoy.

I feel that there is little, if anything, in this
world that is particularly worth pursuing over
a long period.

My life seems to be rather aimless.

I find it difficult to believe strongly in
anything.

Almost everyone I know seems to live a rather
empty life.

Generally, I feel that what I do is pretty
useless.

 

28.
29.
30.

31.

32.

H

H

do not have

H

mostly feel

H

seldom feel
for any other

I feel that I

usually don'

t know what to do with myself.
any important goals in life.
all alone in the world.

a strong sense of responsibility
person.

am a productive person.

 

 

APPENDIX F

SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL

 

 

 

APPENDIX F

SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL
NAME:

INSTRUCTIONS:
On each of the following pages there will be a description of some
aspect of you at the top of the page. Under each of these there is
a pair of adjectives. Here is an example.
How I am as a driver of a car

900d//////// bad
Each pair of adjectives forms a scale. By making a check (X) mark along
the scale you can indicate what you associate with the particular

description of you that is listed right above the scale. For example,
if you feel that the description named right above the scale is very

closely associated with one end of the scale, you would place a check
( ) mark as follows:

How I am as a driver . . . How I am as a driver . . .

 

good /// / / / / / / badORgood/ / / / / / N/baa

 

If you feel that the description is quite closely related to one or the
other end of the scale, you would place your check as follows:

 

How I am as a driver . . . How I am as a driver . . .
good / /¢/ / / / / /bad0Rgood/ / / / / N/ /bad

If the description seems only slightly related to one side as opposed
to the other, you might check as follows:

 

How I am as a driver . . . How I am as a driver . . .

good / / /// / / / /bad0Rgood / / / / /// / /bad

206

 

 

 

 

207

If you considered both sides equally associated you would check the
middle space on the scale:

How I am as a driver . . .

good / / / /»// / / /bad

Remember: Never put more than one check mark on any scale. And
also be sure to check every item. If you are undecided, place the
check mark in the center space. Do not leave the line blank. Do
not spend more than a few seconds marking each scale. Your first
impression is what we would like.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dependent

How I am intellectually

 

unstable

 

withdrawn

 

confused

 

resentful

 

distrusting

undependable

 

incompetent
immature

boring

 

inefficient

 

passive

 

P\ as as as as as as as as F\ P\ “x as

inhibited

 

inconsiderate /

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

uncaring /

uninvolved

F\

as as as as as Ss as as as as as as as as as as
as as as as as D\ as as as as as as as as as as
as as as as as as as us as as as as as as as as
as as as as as as as as as as as as as as as as
as as as as as as as as as as as as as a. as as
as as as as as as as as as as as as 5s as as as

 

independent
stable
outgoing
clearheaded
accepting
trusting
dependable
competent
mature
interesting
efficient
active
spontaneous
thoughtful
caring

involved

 

 

 

dependent
unstable
withdrawn
confused
resentful
distrusting
undependable
incompetent
immature
boring
inefficient
passive
inhibited
inconsiderate
uncaring

uninvolved

 

How I am as a single person

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

independent
stable
outgoing
clearheaded
accepting
trusting
dependable
competent
mature
interesting
efficient
active
spontaneous
thoughtful
caring

involved

 

 

dependent
unstable
withdrawn
confused
resentful
distrusting
undependable
incompetent
immature
boring
inefficient
passive

inhibited

inconsiderate

uncaring

uninvolved

How I am as a goal setter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

independent
stable
outgoing
clearheaded
accepting
trusting
dependable
competent
mature
interesting
efficient
active
spontaneous
thoughtful
caring

involved

 

 

 

 

 

dependent

211

How I am sexually

 

unstable

 

withdrawn

 

confused

 

resentful

 

distrusting

 

undependable

 

 

immature

 

boring

 

inefficient

 

passive

 

inhibited

 

inconsiderate

 

uncaring

 

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
incompetent A
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

uninvolved

/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / [L /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /

 

 

independent
stable
outgoing
clearheaded
accepting
trusting
dependable
competent
nature
interesting
efficient
active
spontaneous
thoughtful
caring

involved

 

 

dependent
unstable
withdrawn
confused
resentful
distrusting
undependable
incompetent
immature
boring
inefficient
passive

inhibited

inconsiderate

uncaring

uninvolved

212

How I am spiritually

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/ / / / / / / /
/ ./ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /

 

 

independent
stable
outgoing
clearheaded
accepting
trusting
dependable
competent
mature
interesting
efficient
active
spontaneous
thoughtful
caring

involved

 

 

dependent

How I am as an employee

 

unstable

 

withdrawn

 

confused

 

resentful

 

distrusting

 

undependable

 

immature

 

boring

 

inefficient

 

passive

 

inhibited

 

inconsiderate

 

uncaring

 

/
/
/
/
/
/
/
incompetent /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

uninvolved

\\\\\\\\'\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

as s. as as as as as as as a. a. as as as as \.

 

 

independent
stable
outgoing
clearheaded
accepting
trusting
dependable
competent
mature
interesting
efficient
active
spontaneous
thoughtful
caring

involved

 

 

 

 

 

dependent
unstable
withdrawn
confused
resentful
distrusting
undependable
incompetent
immature
boring
inefficient
passive
inhibited
inconsiderate
uncaring

uninvolved

214

How I am as a host/hostess

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

as as as as as as as as as as as as as as as as
as as as as as as as as as as as as as a. as as
as as as as as as as as as as as as as as as as
as as as as as as as as as as as as as as as as
as as as as as as as a. as as as as as as as as
\\ as as as as as as as as as as as as as as as
as as as as as as as as as as as as as as as as

 

 

independent
stable
outgoing
clearheaded
accepting
trusting
dependable
competent
mature
interesting
efficient
active
spontaneous
thoughtful
caring

involved

 

 

dependent
unstable
withdrawn
confused
resentful
distrusting
undependable
incompetent
immature
boring
inefficient
passive
inhibited
inconsiderate
uncaring

uninvolved

How I am as a host/hostess

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
g / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
L / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /

 

independent
stable
outgoing
clearheaded
accepting
trusting
dependable
competent
mature
interesting
efficient
active
spontaneous
thoughtful
caring

invblved

 

 

dependent

214

Haw I am as a host/hostess

 

unstable

 

withdrawn

 

confused

 

resentful

 

distrusting

 

undependable

 

 

immature

 

boring

 

inefficient

 

passive

 

inhibited

 

inconsiderate

 

uncaring

 

/
/
L
/
/
/
/
incompetent /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

uninvolved

/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / iZi__/

 

 

independent
stable
outgoing
clearheaded
accepting
trusting
dependable
competent
mature
interesting
efficient
active
sp0ntaneous
thoughtful
caring

invblved

 

 

 

dependent
unstable
withdrawn
confused
resentful
distrusting
undependable
incompetent
immature
boring
inefficient
passive
inhibited
inconsiderate
uncaring

uninvolved

How I am as a Sportsperson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/ -/' ./ / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
L / J / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / L
/ / / / / / / /
/ l _/ i! / / / /

 

 

independent
stable
outgoing
clearheaded
accepting
trusting
dependable
competent
mature
interesting
efficient
active
spontaneous
thoughtful
caring

involved

 

 

dependent
unstable
withdrawn
confused
resentful
distrusting
undependable
incompetent
immature
boring
inefficient
passive

inhibited

inconsiderate

uncaring

uninvolved

How I am as a friend

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\

 

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
i:

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\
\

 

 

independent
stable
outgoing
clearheaded
accepting
trusting
dependable
competent
mature
interesting
efficient
active
spontaneous
thoughtful
caring

involved

 

 

 

dependent
unstable
withdrawn
confused
resentful
distrusting
undependable
incompetent
immature
boring
inefficient
passive
inhibited
inconsiderate
uncaring

uninvolved

217

How I am as a disciplinarian

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

as

as
as as as as bs as as as as as as as as as as ‘a
‘a ‘s as as a. as as as as as as as as as as ‘s
‘a ‘a ‘a as as as as as as as as as a. a. a. ‘a
as as as as as as as as bs as as as as as ‘s ‘a
as as as as as as as as as as as as as as as as
‘s as as as as as as as Ls as as as as as as as

 

independent
stable
outgoing
clearheaded
accepting
trusting
dependable
competent
mature
interesting
efficient
active
spontaneous
thoughtful
caring

involved

 

 

dependent
unstable
withdrawn
confused
resentful
distrusting
undependable
incompetent
immature
boring
inefficient
passive

inhibited

How I am as a homemaker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

inconsiderate /

uncaring

uninvolved

 

 

 

/ / ’1 / / / / /
/¥/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
L / / / / / / /
L / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
L / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / [_ /
/ / / / / / LJ
/ l / / / / L/

/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / I /
L / / / / / / /

 

 

independent
stable
outgoing
clearheaded
accepting
trusting
dependable
competent
mature
interesting
efficient
active
spontaneous
thoughtful
caring

involved

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How I am now with my former spouse

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dependent A / / / / / / / independent
unstable / / / / / / / / stable
withdrawn / / / / / / / / outgoing
confused / / / / / / / / clearheaded
resentful / / / / / / / / accepting
distrusting / / / / / / / / trusting
undependable / / / / / / / / dependable
incompetent / / / / / / / / competent
immature / / / / / / / / mature
boring / / / / / / / / interesting
inefficient / / / / / / / / efficient
passive / / / / / / / / active
inhibited / / / / / / / / spontaneous
inconsiderate / / / / / / / / thoughtful
uncaring / / / / / / / / caring
uninvolved / / / / / / / / involved

 

 

 

220

How I am as a parent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' . dependent / / / / / / / /independent
unstable / / / / / / / ,/stable
withdrawn / / / / / / / /outgoing
confused / / / / / / / /clearheaded
resentful / / / / / / / /accepting
distrusting / / / / / / / /trusting
undependable/ / / / / / / / dependable
incompetent / / / / / / / /competent
immature / / / / / / / /mature
boring / / / / / / / /interesting
inefficient / / / / / / / /efficient
passive / / / / / / / /active
inhibited Z__A/ / / / / / /spontaneous
inconsiderate / / / / / / /thoughtfu1
uncaring / / / / / / / flaring

 

uninvolved / / /

 

 

/ / / / / involved

 

 

How I was in the past with my former spouse

dependent

unstable
withdrawn
confused
resentful
distrusting
undependable
incompetent
immature
boring
inefficient
passive

inhibited

inconsiderate

uncaring

uninvolved

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Q
/
/
/
/

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\’\\\[\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

independent
stable
outgoing
clearheaded
accepting
trusting
dependable
competent
mature
interesting
efficient
active
spontaneous
thoughtful
caring

involved

 

 

 

 

 

 

dependent
unstable
withdrawn
confused
resentful

distrusting

undependable

incompetent
immature
boring
inefficient
passive

inhibited

How I am in social situations

222

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

inconsiderate /

uncaring

uninvolved

 

/

 

/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /

/ / / / / / /

/ / / / / / /

/ / / / / / /

/

 

 

independent
stable
outgoing
clearheaded
accepting
trusting
dependable
competent
mature
interesting
efficient
active
spontaneous
thoughtful
caring

involved

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dependent
unstable
withdrawn
confused
resentful

distrusting

undependable [7

incompetent
immature
boring
inefficient
passive

inhibited

inconsiderate

uncaring

uninvolved

How I am at meeting expenses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /

/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /

 

independent
stable
outgoing
clearheaded
accepting
trusting
dependable‘
competent
nature
interesting
efficient
active
spontaneous
thoughtful
caring

involved

 

 

 

APPENDIX G

ZUCKERMAN'S ANXIETY CHECKLIST

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX G

ZUCKERMAN'S ANXIETY CHECKLIST

NAME:

Check the words below (as many as you like) which describe

how you feel today.

upset steady
loving tense
desperate pleasant
worrying joyful
happy ______ fearful
nervous thoughtful
calm frightened
contented secure
terrified shaky
panicky cheerful
afraid

Copyright 1960 by the American Psychological Association.
Reprinted by permission.

224

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX H

CROWNE AND MARLOWE'S SOCIAL

DESIRABILITY SCALE

 

APPENDIX H

CROWNE AND MARLOWE'S SOCIAL

DESIRABILITY SCALE

NAME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Listed below are a number of statements con—

T F l.
T F 2.
T F 3
T F 4
T F 5.
T F 6.
T F 7
T F 8
T F 9.

cerning personal attitudes and traits. Read
each item and decide whether the statement
is true or false as it pertains to you
personally.

Before voting I thoroughly investigate the quali—
fications of all the candidates.

I never hesitate to go out of my way to help
someone in trouble.

It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work
if I am not encouraged.

I have never intensely disliked anyone.

On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to
succeed in life.

I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my
way.

I am always careful about my manner of dress.

My table manners at home are as good as when I eat
out in a restaurant.

If I could get into a movie without paying for it
and be sure I was not seen, I would probably do

it.

225

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

226

On'a few occasions, I have given up doing some-
thing because I thought too little of my ability.

I like to gossip at times.
There have been times when I felt like rebelling
against people in authority even though I knew

they were right.

No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good
listener.

I can remember "playing sick" to get out of
something.

There have been occasions when I took advantage
of someone.

I'm always willing to admit it when I make a
mistake.

I always try to practice what I preach.

I don't find it particularly difficult to get
along with loud mouthed, obnoxious, people.

I sometimes try to get even, rather than forgive
and forget.

When I don't know something I don't at all mind
admitting it.

I am always courteous, even to people who are
disagreeable.

At times I have really insisted on having things
my own way.

There have been occasions when I felt like
smashing things.

I would never think of letting someone else be
punished for my wrongdoings.

I never resent being asked to return a favor.

I have never been irked when people expressed
ideas very different from my own.

I never make a long trip without checking the
safety of my car.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

227

There have been times when I was quite jealous
of the good fortune of others.

I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone
off.

I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors
of me.

I have never felt that I was punished without
cause.

I sometimes think when people have a misfortune
they only got what they deserved.

I have never deliberately said something that
hurt someone's feelings.

 

 

 

APPENDIX I

CATTELL'S l6PF

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mcofluflpcoo amoemoaocpmg CH

mcofluocsm Houses mo conumuofluwbop oucospCflmspcoo
mouoom :mflm .mmwcvumam cues meow can sensuaso

m0 Hw>oa cuss cospmeHMoo meow we where .pcom
IHHkuCH succumoa ummm m swoops mmwsm ou Mowdw on
on mpcou m Houomm :0 can: mwuoom 0L3 comhwm one

Aaufiomflmo Hmucwfi ospmMHocom chmfimv
ucmflnm socflxcflculuomuumnd sucwmflaaoucH duos

.oamowm mo moans

Hwafimfiou 0p wane kuuwn sEmfloHuflMU m0 pflmumm

mmoH succeumaom Hmcowuom CH moouwcwm we on
.mmooum w>Hu0m mEnom aaflcmmm w: .mGOfipmsbfim o>Hm
Immense aHHMflUOw cam wamowm cues mcflamwb mCOHpmm
15000 wwxfla mm .manmummpm saapcflx spouumocluwom
smamowm ou m>Hpcouum swumummooo 0p momma sAMHEacu
noncommm aaamusumc wococv m>flmmmumxo aHHMCOflpOEm
smcfiomlammw spousumcpoom on on mpcmu a HOpomm

:0 AOH cu m mo coumv cos: mouoow 0:3 comswm use

inessnuouoemmac
mcwummHOHuMmm smcfiomlawmm spwpmmmcfiumz smcflomuso

coawoomfla ouoom cmfim

Iowawmn w aHmEfim ma aME mmoCHHsp me

.amOHOSpcmocoamm 0p esp mchOfluocsm
Hoom ucwmwuamm awe us no soccomfiaaopCH 30H mo coflp
.c0fipmvmumanCH

Hmmwufla pcm wuohocoo ou co>flm sHHDU smwmum pom cmmoa
0p 30am on on mpcmu m Houomm :0 30a monsoon :OmHom ch

.m>

m MOEU¢m

on on smoEHu pm swoop amfi om
omen» mCOflummsooo acme CH can

pcc
on

AaUHommmo HmucwE Ufipmmaocow stoqv
mCflxCflculouwmocoo spcomHHHoucH mqu

.UMMS H0 sw>fluoduwmflo sHMOHpHHO

.muflmup wanmuflmop mum
smpmwpccpm Hmcomuwm CH
=pflmHH: pom omflomum on
.mucflomswfl> m0 momHEOHmfioo mcflpfio>o

macecu mGHOp wo ans we: CH
sacsns we cm

can swcoam mcflxuos soamowm coca mesons mmCch moxfla

mm

.wOOHm can saucepmwxm sHOOO smm«um on on mpcou fl

Houomm co Am ou H mo copwv 30H wwuoom 0:3 comhwm wSB

.m>

fi KOBoflm

innsscnonnnc
H000 samofluwso spwfiowuwo spo>uowmm

coflpooMflo whoom 30a

mmoa m.QQMBB<U

H XHQZWQQ<

228

 

229

 

.auflu0:usm mpnmmoumflp pom sAmHm:u0

mcflmmcmav ccflumufiuo:u:m so>HUHcsmmmuxw so

maflumo: smammafi: ou 3MH m swuoumsm w: on mccmu mm
.pwpcflelucoccwmopcfi pcw spwunmwMImaom sw>Hunwmmm
we m uouomm c0 :mfl: mmuoom 0:3 comuom m:B

AoOCMCflEOQV

ouchnspm
so>HuHuomfioo so>flmwoumm¢ sycopcmmeCH sw>fiuuomm¢

.Hmflucwuom 0Hu0:0%mg momma

lumps: cm wuflmmop ucwfiumsmpm m>flpowwwo o>mfl:0w
ou cOmem m moanmco moEaumEom Hm>oH U boom m
um:u #50 Uprfiom m>m: muw>Homno HMUHCflHU p3mu:min

.meHQOHm HmGOHuOEw po>a0mcs 0p

«ucoEUmzmpm pwcmflwwu m coerce commom m m: age o:
meHpoEOw .wamsofi moosm pflfiom CHMpCflME 0p wand
Houuo: s:umcoupm 0mm mafimwommom spoawmsncs soMflH
#DOQM OHpmHHmoh swanmum stDuME aHHMCOMuoso w:
on modem 0 Houomm :0 :@H: mohoom 0:3 COmem o:B

A:umcwnpm 0mm um:mflmv
ensue:
sEHmU sApHHmwm moomm smanmum aaamcoflpOEm

Hmcoflmmmmno How mDOchm
we om

 

.moeoupcam ospomooc
acme mo puma ms apfl>flmmmm mfl:B .wmwcuommmoo
smCHmmomcoo sucwpcomwp cmumo

.Euowcoo on com seafloop w: ou smHo:u0 0p am3

w>Hm ou mpcmu m Houomm co 30H mouoom 0:3 GOmem w:E

nm>

m mOBoflh

3oq

Ammocw>flmmflfindmv

mCHEHomcoo smcflumUOEEooom spas: soHQESm

.muprOmflp 0Hu0:0amm meow 0cm unwound:

m0 mEMOm Ham umOEHm on coaeoo we whoom U Houomm
.A.opo smucflmamfioo OHpME0w0:0>mQ smwOCMQHSpmHU

mwoam smmH:0:mv mfioumfiam unsound: WGfl>m: sCOfiuomm
Influenmflp :H w>Hu0m spoaoccm can HMQOHHOEo waHmMm
sadwpmmm spwdmflumw aHHMOHpOHDw: smpcmaop auflamwu

ammwwoowc mcflpm>o soflpmmam pom wanmwmcm:0 smCOHu

[Hpcoo auouoommflpMmCD Mom oocwmwaou COHumuumDMm an

30H

.m>

U mOEoflh

0: Op money 0 nouomm co 30H mwuoow 0:3 comuwm o:B

A:umcwmpm 0mm Ho3oqv
comma aaflmmm
soHQMpm mmoq aaamcoflpofim stCfichm am pwwoowmd

 

 

 

 

 

230

 

.+md no =unem Hence anemone

Huaflsflm adamfioflmuomsm w:u Eomm pm:mfismCHume o:
paso:m :wmcom ofiuaamcmo:0awm m:u :Hv omwuomsw
Hafiucmmww mH:u m0 to>flumuwmsfl HMOflHomwpmo:
chcfl w:B .mCOHcmmEOO auufl3 ou wamoom mCHxH03
noun: whomwum m: can soflumflHMHOE pcm mDOflucwHom
Inoo aHHmsm: mH om :.wu::fiE mCH>HmHOMCS w:#
mHHHm: sHSMcMHm smanflmcommwu sOCfiHm>wwmwm swoop
m0 wmcmm a: pwumcfifiop smouomsm:0 CH manuomxo w:
0p mpcou 0 Moscow :0 :ma: mwhoom 0:3 common m:B

A:uocouum omouwmdm momcoupmv
pcsonoasm spfimum smCHH®>omem smoofiucofiomcoo

.HMHHDOHoE can o>flMHsmEH m: was

om .nwpmoH pwuooao so we :wm0:0 aaucwsowsm

mH om .woumwumo sucwomw>ummmw sw>HmmoHwa
sxcmuw sm>Humwau sw>Hpom saswhmw:o o: Op
mpcwu uwmmu wfl:u :0 :ma: wouoow 0:3 comumm 0:5

Aaocoonsmv
Qfluwmwm5:ucm san>Hq >Ho>flmHSQEH saxozalomlammmm

.mmomum Eoum comm: UHuMEOm mmoa w>m:

0: Es: mmwsmo moans %: pcdon 0: Op Howsmou ma: wHH:3
sm>fluoomww wHOE EM: moxmfi wwfifip pm #5: smpow Hafioom

Iflucm 0p puma amE oocodamcw moomm Eomw Eonmwmm mflm

.mpcmfioc amusuaso pom m0Ca:Munpcd moosm mom uuowmw :H

mEHMUMH can HmSmmo :wuwo we mm

.w>

O m090¢h

m: Ou mpcop om

.omommsm EH apmwpmcs
on on wood» w Houomm :0 30a mwuoow 0:3 cowuwm m:a

A:umcosum omouwmsm wamozv
wooepmmflano 3mm meom smwasm mwpm>m spcoflpwmxm

.c0mmom canopcwmwp sMoQOw m
.mmw>nwm:0 a: uoounoo wafifium pom moan

pwuopflmcoo pow swpmuwQflpr waspcs sOflumfiEHmmwm sysop

MOEfiHOEOm mfl wm

.m>

m mOBU¢m

.w>fluoogwouu:fl spcooflpom sprHmmummH
o: ou mpcou m Houomm c0 30H mwuoom 0:3 comuwm w:B

Aaocomusmmov
cuduflome stOHHom suchDHm suwnom

 

 

 

231

.mmmCflmmsw oeumflamoncs

a: oHMHOE muoum comm: 0p ocm soocm5H0mHom

msoum m: 30am 0» mocwu om .mCOfipmmdooo :msou
ocm oHQoom wosmo moxHHmHo om .HmoflHUMHQEfl
sucoocwmwo sucmflummefl smao: ocm COHucwuum m0
monocmfioo moEflquOm we om .oCflcfiEwm swoofioflpmmw
sUHuMfluum smcflsmwuolamo soooCfiEIHwocou 0:

on mocou H Houoom co :mfl: mouoom 0:3 comuwm o:B

AmHmEonv
o>fiuflmcom
soouowpoumluo>o sucoocomoo sooocefilnoocofi

.xom oUHmOQmo
o:u :fl ooumonoucfl aaobfluom oco :a:m5m: w: 0»

mocou om .mcflxaop was“ :055 oESmcoo ocm smamcmflm
mwmcoo wuocmfl saflmuoo m0 mmoawumo o: coo w:
suw>030m .omepmm #50:#fi3 sm:0HpMSpr HMCOflDOEo

mcHHoDMm ocm wamoom :ufl3 mGHHcoo cH Hoop ocw
Hoo3 comm on EH: mecho :wmocooccsxmlxofl:uz mam
.wmcommwh HocowUOEo ca osmocsnm ocm smsoocmucomm
smmcfl:u 3w: amp 0p momma soH0: soHQMfloom

me E Houomm :0 :ma: mwuoom 0:3 COmHom o:B

Amefimmmv
wsoocoucomm
soopHQH:CHCD soHOQIaHHMHoom soEOmouspco>

.m>

.wflmm: :omcomcocloct oeuwflamou oco

HmUflpomum m :0 mcflumuomo msomm o flow: on mono: om
.moEm saucecao sown: soo>OECD meHuoEow we om .mGOHp
nononmfiw Hmuppaso sw>HuoonQDm m0 amoeumoxw no: stQHm
Icommou sucoocomooCfl swcflasomwfi sOflumHHmoH .Hmofluooum
w: on mocop H uouomm c0 30H mouoom 0:3 commom o:B

Amfluhmmv
omcowEOCIOZ sOflumHHmwm sucmflawulwawm sowoCflEI:mSOB

H mOBodm

.m>

.Efl: ocsonm c0

mcflom mH pm:p Ham :uH3 uomucoo cw mcflmowx 0p co>wm
no: me ocm smmsosm momma 0p mocoflnw wwOHO 03u H0 woo
wnowomm smuUMpcoo HMEOmem :ufl3 mcoflummdooo moxHHmHo
smaowEH: ocemmmumxo cs ocm :omomm cfl oooomfifl ocm 30am
o: 0p mocou om .mmCHHwom muHHOflwaaH mo: maamswd om
:.Ho30HwHHo3: m smGHMflpos swsofiuomo swCHBMHo:uH3 sa:m
o: 0p mocwu pecan mfl:b :0 30a mmuoow 0:3 cOmHoQ w:B

innnoencsv
cases .ucwcemoeo .cecunnunwm .scm

: mOBoflm

232

 

 

.mowufl>flpom moomm Ca owuoommm 0: Cu En: omsmo 0p

wonu auflaosow>floCH mam .wummonuso w>flmmoumxw

a: ooficmmsooom mCOflumspHm UflpmfiamouCC 0p ome
moEfluoEOm muwoumuCfi omuowsfloIHoCCH mam .mofip .o>HuMCHmMEHCC
Iflammm Housma:m ocm mamoom Hmaoofluumm m0 m50fi> moEfluwfiom on: smowOComHoEo CH omo: we: goo: 0p wand
IHHQO oCm =smHMHuCommw: :ufl3 omCHwocoo so>flpmomo sHHmuwo Hw>o owCMoOCOU ms om .oHQHmmom aHmCOH>Qo
aHo>HuMCHmmEH sooum>fluoelwflwm sCMflEw:0m swsouums we um:3 m0 Coaumuofio w:u 0p uoonnsm oCm smnovuma
amoamw>o mo>o ooCHmoCOUCC sHMCOfiUCo>C00CC o: HMOfluooum Op w>flquuum smmCH:u #:0Hm w:# 0o 0p msowxcm
ou moCop E Cowomm Co :mfl: mwuoow 0:3 COmHmm w:9 w: on nose: 2 Mouomm C0 30H wouoom 0:3 Comuom o:B

AMHuD<V AMHCwamumv
oooCHEICCownd .mHouumE amoeuomum m0 mmmaomov Homoum swwflafifimom HMCkuxm

smofiocomhb uoCCH CH QC oommmuz so>flumCfiomEH a: owumasmom sHMCOHuc0>Coo sHCmono samofluomum

E MOBU<m

.oouowmxo c: on oCHm> A Monomm amoemau 0p mm Hmeo
u0C ohm moficwH:QONfl:om oHOCmumm C0 mumo o:u spomw CH .mfiOCmumm aaflmmmmoooC p0C we Howomm mH:E .m.z

.moQEwE Emma Hoom m soamoom Ho:u0 usonm
owCHooCOOCC smCOHpom ms: CH commonflawo aaamsms
we on .oMHH HmquE sHMCCquH CH owumosopcfl oCo
sowHMCOHCHQOIMHom mH somo C30 we: CH oo>H0>CH
coumo we 0: .Homu:ooo oCm mCHumsuumflE w:

0p moCou q Houomm C0 :mfi: mosoom 0:3 Comuwm o:9

.waHOB Emou ooom

m soamoom Mo:p0 udonm ooCMoocoo so>wpfluomfioolCC
saswuwo:0 soa:mummom smoHoCooCou wCOHmwfl m0 menu
0: 0p mocou q Houomm Co 30H wouoom 0:3 COmem w:5

Amflxmadv
fins to new
on awmm samsofioob m0 mosh soHQMpmmo¢ smCfiumSHB

ACOHmapOMmV
Hoom ou one: so0CMC0HCflm0|waom smoofioflmwsm .m>

q mOBU<m

 

 

 

 

 

233

 

 

.A:00:oCmm oomv momap HHm m0 mucosa HCOHCHHU

CH COEEOO auw> mH whoow O mouomm :mHm .oumm
IHOHuHmm 0U comm H0 mmsoum CH ooumwoom Hoom pOC
mooo om .moHpHdoHMMHo CH auonCm 0p aoCoocwb
31320 n mm: mm .9383 can 5:38
Iwnom m0 HHCM suoHHH03 m smooos soommwumwo 0:
0p mocou O H0»0Mh Co :mH: mouoom 0:3 Comsmm o:&

AmmmaCOHm UHHCOV
ooHQCOHB sw>HmmmmeQ smCHanhoz so>HmCo:oMmmm

.EmHoHCao 0: Cme :omommmo Co smCOHuoCuHm

0p :omommmo HmuCoEHucomCC sHmspooHHouCH Cm

mm: mm .HmoHuaHMCo ocm omomo:oum: Couwo mH om
.o3oH:m saHoHM03 sowOCoHuwmxo sow:mHHom w: on
moCou z Houomm C0 :mH: wouoom 0:3 comsom o:B

AmmoCoBoH:mv
mCHumupocom saHoHHOB smCHpoHCOHoU so3op:0m

.m>

O MOBumm

.m>

Z mOEuflh

sousoom ocm pCdHHHmoM mH om
auHommoo mH: oCm MHomEH: CH wononcoo mCOHxCMCC
somsuma o mm: mm
w: on moCou o Houomm C0 30H mohoom 0:3 COmuwm o:B

mH mm
o: 0: mocmu z mouomm C0 30H mwuoom 0:3 commwm w:B

.pmsuumHo oco moH:ummHqu wxo>o

ans 0: pm:u 0m sEH: :HH3 mCOHm mCHom COC mH mocha

m Cm:3 m0 o>HuHmamCH mCHo: m0 pCHom w:u 0p #5:
.mmCH:H :UH3 Homo Op

.w>MwC anmxo:mCC :pH3 soHOMHQ

Amomnooom ooHQCOHpCDV
wConm sHConwCOU sooudmmMIMHom soHOMHm

.mCOoCopComw
ocm Hmssumc mH on smeOU pm:3 :uH3 ucoucoo oCm
oommon aHHmmw up: .oum3x3m oCo wosmo moEHHoEOm
.onEHm ocm .HmuCoEHucwm sowuooprH:QomCC

AmmoCmmepmflv
HoquEHwam smmoHpufl sHMHDuoz s#:mHH:uHom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.uuommsm Ho quEonmo

HHo:u owoC COC mooo AHQEHm us: onoom oxHH

ImHo uOC mwoo on .Am Houowm owmv mnw:po :uH3
mCOHHMHoM mH: CH quCHeoo aHHHmwwoooC uOC mH us:

sC0HCHmo UHHQCQ quooomHo om .C30 mH: C0 CoHuom
mCHMmu oCo mCOHmHomo mCmeE sam3 C30 mH: mCHom
ou oosoumsoom suCooComooCH aHHmuCoEmuomEou

mH NO Houoom C0 :mH: mouoom 0:3 Comuwm o:B

AsocwHOHmmnmunHemc
Homoouoomom
swCOHwHowQ C30 mummohm sHCoHonmnmIMme

234

.omCm:0 oCm

oonHCw>C00CH m0 qusoHou whoa ocm saHHmeCom
oMHH CH ucoEHMwmxo 0p owCHHOCH wCOE soNHHMHOE 0p
omCHHoCH mme sowECOMCH HHm3 duos m: CH wonu mm
.3mC Ho oHo Ho:uHo smoooH mCHoHomoH mCHHHCoCH oCm
HMUHumwxm mH om .mosmmH HMHCwEmoCom Co monsoo
mm: oCo mepumE HosuooHHouCH CH ooumonouCH w:

0p moCou HQ Houowm C0 :mH: wouoom 0:3 Comhom w:B

AEmHHMOHommV
mCHxCH:quomm

sHmoHpaHoCC sHMHoQHq sHmoHHHHU smCHuCoEHComxm

.w>

.uhommsw QCOHm mowoC w: Mo:umu sw0H0:0 a: MCOHHmm
Ioum aHHHmmmwooC UOC mH om .COHCCHome HmsoH>HoCH
CH mConoH m: age oCm msomm 0:: :uH3 OCOHM 0m OH
mocou om .COHumuHEom oCm Hw>oummm HmHoow C0 monmwo
oCo moxHH stmowm Mo:p0 :uH3 wConHowo oon oCm :H03
0H muowomm sNO Houomm C0 30H mwmoom 0:3 Common w:B

Amocwno:om moomwv
Hw30HHom oCCom oCm :HwCHOb: m squoCmmwolmCOHw

ma moeosm

.m>

.ucmaonu eHnsuowHkucH= HnoHnancn nH

ooumomprH o: 0» HOC moCoH on .moHuHHom oCo COHm
IHHoH CH w>Huo>uowC00 whoa mH sCoHuHommu :uH3 mCOHo
cm on ooCHHUCH wH somcm:o wCOQHmom oCo mmommo 0p
moCoH o: smC:B .wmooH 3wC 0U ommmos CH mCHmHEOHmEOO
oCm wooHquo mH o: .kuum: o: u:mHE ome OCH:HwE0m
Co:3 smoHOCoumHmCooCH oUHmmwo :soCHu oCm owHup: w:u
mumwoom ocm so>oHHo: op p:mCmH Coo: mm: m: pm:3 CH
pcoonCoo mH Ho Hepomm C0 30H monocm 0:3 Comuwm o:B

AEmHum>meCoov
mmHuHCOHMMHQ HMCOHCHooHB we quHoHOB
smmooH ow:wHHQMme OCHuoommwm sw>Hum>HowCoo

Ho moeoem

 

 

235

 

.o>HHo soommm:0wHoCs up: sooumHCEHum mo wmooxw
Co wHComoumoH COHpmuumsuw mHm .mH:wuoomoH

oCo smmeHHHoouo sauHCC m0 ooumwo o:u m0 3oH>
Hoom m woxmu o: mmsoum CH .o>HuomCH CHMEoH ou
wHQMC: pd: sooCmHumm Cmumo mH mm .ucwHummEH
sHCmuon smmoHume soHnmuHoxo smeoH m: 0H
woCou «a Houomm C0 :mH: monoom 0:3 COmHom w:B

ACOHmau OHmHm :mHmv
u:moou3uo>o sCo>HHQ sooHMHumCMm somCOB

e:

.mO C0 :mH: who smoHOC

Ioumm oEOm oCm smuoomoH o>HHOmmwm .oHMCHquO

on on suo>o30: smoCop moEHuoEOm om .CoHuoquoM
HMHoom Com oummws oCm :uoomw®MIMHom: ooEku
aHCOEEOU mH um:3 mwoCooH>o oCo sHCmonmo oCm onm3w
aHHMHUOm w: on ooCHHoCH mH sHoH>m:w: HmeCoo

oCm mCoHuoEo wH: mo HOMCCOU OCOHHm o>m: 0b

monu ma Houomm C0 :mH: mwsoom 0:3 common w:B

AHOHHCOO umwoCoolmHom :mHmv
ommEHIMHom
@CH30HHom somHome aHHMHoom sooHHOHpCOU

.mOCMEHOMHom XMO3

oCm H00:0m HQCHmHo ads Ho>wH ConCou :mH: saHomHo>COU
.Hosuw ocm HMHHH pruHH monsooum COHCM>HHOE 30H um:u
meom o:u CH sooCmshomuom 30H oCm wmoCHNMH 0H ome Coo
CoHuommmHummHo>0 wH: smCOHuoCuHm oEOm CH .Aooumupwsuw
HOCV oOmeHumm ocm soomomfioo soowaoH soumoom

0: 0p monu v0 uouoom C0 30H mwhoom 0:3 COmem o:B

AConcwu 0Hmuw 304v

.w> ooumuumCMMCD soHQMOB sHHCvCMHB sowonom
O mOEofim
.lma 30:m AoHOCmHom o:p
CDC #5: so>Hu0ommm o:p aHHmHoommov mpCoEumCmoMHME
aCmE oCm sowumdmoonE Hmom mmE om .mConumCHom
Ho sHCmono soumsonmCoo aHuo>o HOC mH om .moCMEoo
HmHoom Com ounces oCm HOHuCoo HHH3 :HHB owuo:u0:
w: HOC HHH3 ma Houomm C0 30H mouoom 0:3 Cowuwm o:B
ACOHumumouCH 30qv
womHD C30 m30HHOm
.m>

.HOUOHOHm mo wmonHmo suoHHwCOOIwHom owCHHmHOMHoCD

mo Cosme

 

 

236

 

 

     

1.0.3.0. 0.0.0 191.
hIODOKsimw>O
.zm.>_~.o .thdsawwbmu .unzw...
f
25533.13 .0 force—m .131.
w>_m1_3d<<OU .wfluwmn. >1.._<_U0m
.mmzéu 44:502...U<xms Oman—Ochzou
j
.sceo.u:.:?._om.

wZO_m_UwD Z>>O mmmummn.
JDquKDOmmm .bzwaikaniJUn
I!
REE—H.225:

02.12;;

.mwmu Jaime; .02....2w2.~.wtxw

Annocwcosa ._.:0V

OmeDOkH 02;”..10; .memeE
.OZ.10<O&n.w~.. “Sum .u>.u2u2w¢Lt<
AWmDEUYWLLWV

wz<3<

>13<_UOw .QmImEOA. .mh3hw<
Ill
3:3...

DMDZSQmemq

.Z<=2w100 .w>....<z.0<x_
/
Aco.mcw.otn:

400m Oh 0:41.255:an

~o_mE0sn..

flththmumm>O. 02.0230
.m>...._mzww dun—2.1.xw02u...
ii
3.55m.

0.40m erJSUOw

.Omh.m.12_23 .NIOuwzah2u>
I!
2.9.0.3 000.093 tumcotaw.

0.4..5 .U.._.m_n_<~.0<<

.FZMFmewn. £30....2u5m200
fl
Aaucomtomv

U_hw<_m31...2m .>xUD... Du. >Ll<2
l!
Avuco:.EoD.

m>._._._...wa<<OU

2.1000th m.>_mmm~.00<. u>....¢u»«<
239.9; can .931.

.2‘.<U .>C..<wm mmu<u

.mehdi .an<hn >4443—P02u
iii
Anzuonuu .25.: 2.3.9.: 3.3.1.
>10.mm.02_v.z_1...

._.U<~....mm< .h2ue.44u...2. NCO!
3.550632.

02_.H<n._U_._.~_.<n.. 02.00

.>m<w Qwhm<m12md§ 52.00.50

 

 

      

    

.—

 

c

o

 

 

 

 

 

zo.bm.10nwo
w¢°Um 20....

 

 

 

 

o-D-

 

 

'Oooeo><4

Athm. szUm ZN... o¢<oz<km

v .

.2.“ “RN l... ’HO :2 *1.— if: :a— taxi *‘v *0." 3':
1.010 ..

 

.0 :2- 1

 

.< m. D :. $25.1 outta! 2.31 3310.3 =<
.thin—:36 €35 coo—.930 «ca. 65...... x: a<
or: x. venue-A to. :3... _ o... .3 n;— .ono. 9 Inttou

 

753cc. v.90 £01:
ammoassoo .oweqmcmnmuzn
[.50215. .aux14uz

eo_§e2t_ 23.. $33. 3508
no wmwdmd .38.: 2.50 $0.30“.
23.33.209.15“ owzjnfieaza
Aousocoroo 95.0.

$30.16“. 0239..

oz< :525? a. .hxunxuiuniaouu

fi

 

 

 

 

 

 

:acuEusanw. .o EntostmcoU.
fin: ..<zo:_o<E
02.5%.me .w>_._.<>¢wmzou

 

Cocoa-on. viaduct;

.wzwmww ..._.Zm.U<..n..s.OU

.mewa .D_U<4n. .ouxzmu<.u4wm
/
ammuniti .6230

WJJSUOw me wZ..DZw0
.wDOrrthwmuZD ....20.¢2..¢Ou
3.595;...

wzmmuzou

:xsgwdfizssoo: J<u:.u<¢n

373.5
wZOC BZOU 02;me04 522.22..

.0151.

0.5343.

.._.z<_4w¢...:wm dun-.5222:
if
.2325:

w>;_w2mm.._.<ww.1._. .92.... .>1n

/i

/ii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.9.0.3 cowsmaom .0403...

$331 wom<0mmm5 .hzwawmxw
l/
Raucoosanoo.

mjoimw .Zmz..._u<._. .uunOn

 

 

 

 

 

“mausolmrcsnamv
0350022804
.368 .84 35$ 6...... 6.31::

 

 

2.9.2.. on. .33. 3382410
some... 554%. .335. mm: 5
1:20:05 .3213: >- 35::

 

 

 

Adios—cu .0302 230—9.: .0301:
0Z.V.Z.1._.
.whmeZOU s...2l934l._.2. nun.-

Assigns.
nuzm (001.4
IZOEmu .owxoimo 6:53:

[ill

 

 

zo.hm.¢Umwo
waOUn BOA.

 

 

n so}
—°.O.—. BOP—\OL WEgOl

 

 

 

.55 Icon >32

.0
.0

O

a:

normal <

 

 

men—SE SM... n... S

 

 

ill.

00
. own

a;

 

 

 

APPENDIX J

ADJUSTMENT TO DIVORCE SCALE

 

 

 

APPENDIX J

ADJUSTMENT TO DIVORCE SCALE

NAME:

INSTRUCTIONS: On each of the following pages will be a
series of sentences describing things you
perhaps do in your daily life. Under each
sentence is a rating scale of how frequently
you think you do that particular thing that
is described.

Example:
I climb mountains

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always
For each of the sentences I would like you to circle
whichever word or phrase which best describes how frequently

you do that activity that is described.

Example:
I climb mountains

almost never/.sometimes/often/almost always

1. I sleep well.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always
2. I eat satisfactorily.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always
3. I pay attention to my personal appearance.

almost never/eeldom/sometimes/often/almost always
4. I keep my home clean and orderly.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

237

 

 

 

5.

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

 

238

I get to work on time.

almost

never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I miss work only when it's necessary.

almost

never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I can concentrate on my job when I'm there.

almost
I make
almost
I keep
almost
I keep

almost

never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always
sure that my children have regular meals.
never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always
the clothes for myself clean.
never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always
the clothes for the children clean.

never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I pay the bills on time.

almost

never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I involve myself in my children's activities.

almost
I have
almost
I call

almost

never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always
fun with my children.
never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always
up friends and invite them over.

never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I accept invitations from people of the opposite sex
to go out.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I no longer feel any obligation to do what my former
spouse tells me.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

 

 

 

 

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

239

I can talk about visitation schedules with my former
spouse without getting sad or angry.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I can do things that are fun to me without thinking of
my former spouse.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always
I talk to friends about all the reasons for my divorce.
almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I think about my former spouse when I‘m out with a
person of the opposite sex.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I take time to read books that interest me.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I participate in academic courses that interest me.
almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I do things to enrich myself intellectually.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I accept invitations from friends of the same sex to
go out.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I participate in community activities of a political
nature.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always
I attend social engagements to which I am invited.
almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always
I play sports that I have an interest in.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I meet my sexual needs in ways that are personally
satisfying.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

 

 

 

 

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

 

240

I have good contacts with my relatives.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always
I do things that help other people.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I practice my religious beliefs to the extent that I
find personally satisfying.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I do things that interest me that I haven't done before.
almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I do what I think are creative things.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I discipline the children in ways I think are best.
almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

I enjoy being a single person.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/Often/almost always

I know what I want out of life and do the things needed
to achieve it.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always
I think about my future with anticipation.

almost never/seldom/sometimes/often/almost always

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX K

"NEW DIRECTIONS"

BROCHURE

 

 

 

 

 

 

oom~-mmm uwcoza

:mo_zowz .ocemcmn umom
mmN unwam
o>wio ucrzcugoz come

qucmu ucwsumwtp w
:orua:_m>m —ou_oo_ozuxma
.:w_umc gu'ox .w

”uumucou .wuto>vu Lao» cw go» o»
a_w: no we u—zou meg» ma EmeOLa use
-Fum::ou m cuzm «use poo» so» +—

.Emco:H
we zucsou mg» to utzou mg» we u:o_bu
zuzzou Em5o2~ wzu >2 uosoucwg mmuw>twm
ecu mcowuocze ozu cu Lo: woto>mv a on
ucwEu—umu:m Laos con: Lm>momumsz mcw
-men c: was wuw>iwm menu we mpomtzox
Pwo>m ou wmoocu so» we: to Lacuwgz
.Lmzugzi .qucau ucosumwgp use co_uc:
-_m>w Pmowuoposozma ecu mo utoaaam Lo
ccevczw ms» :+ Lw>momuwgz xv; Asa a?
um>~e>:_ uo: mtm muzm>tmw to mucwmm
.mowxoanw mum vcc sozocH we aucnou
ogu .utsou uvzug_u sucsou smzach as»
.utsou we vcowtu >ucsou sagas. 0;»

.pr3 mm mtovw>oga

mucogamcw ;u_mm; towns thuo x2 votw>0u

mm vcm .c—w_;m w=_m\mm0Lo m=_m an twee

-wutmu my Lmucwu ucmsumwip vcm covum=_m>w

Pmuwmopogu>ma mgr .zma cu xuwpwno n30» :o

women we umcu umou a an mpacpwm>m mums
mcmwn m_ Emgmotn ace—wmcsou mesh

.ausum us» cm vm>po>:_ m:_wn
“socu_z Emgmoga ace—wmczoo mg» :_ uw>Fo>
.:r on see sex .wtwwmc so» we use .xbmuca
upo> z_wuwposou we avaum as» to EcLaOLa
m:_Pomczou wcu Luxurw cw :owuua*9watma
.xucaou Euzm:_ cw mpozu—>_v:_ acmugo>Pu we
mvwa: ucm muzmzozu on» “scam mgoe chwp o»
umuuzuzou ocwwa m_ xvaum a .Emtmoga use
-mezzou menu :u—x :o.uo:=wcou :_

.we__ Lao» Low mcowuumg_u

3m: uwm on vcn e—wmtzoz «scam voom —mww cu

:Pawn :mu :_mmm :ox w—wmgsoa mo mmmcwgwxm

3m: mwgu cue: .wpomgsox «zoom _awu

«main m ctowF :mu :0» wmzwpwm» ucm mvwmc
xsox we o:_vcmumgwuca co concise

mmcozcm uwatu “.gmu no»
m...........UO£ H xpco Wm
mqumum om E_~

mupzmw as m.uH

ewes: 3oz

muzo on an pupa E.~
2.23.2 t Eu .3:
_wm:ocm x: mmve H

amcvx wzu uzona «mg:
awe on :waam; ~__3 pug:
mwmaoam x5 mum; _

wuoom o: s_H

nwx__
mm:w_wwu .woto>wv Lao» m:_L:u
mvww: use mmcm—wwu Lao» ucmum
-qucz paw .u302u x_mu .uzoac
x=_;u cu wucmzu a ac» m>po ca
vmcmwmou mm EuLmOLa m:__wm==ou
m_gp .wugo>_u Lszu cu mucwe
-amzmua wrung can Psemmwuoam
wioe axos apnoea a:TULo>_u
a_w; o» EogooLa m:__wm==ou
a vocamev mu: zu_;: ow:_—u
muu>wga a we qucwu «:wEuowLp
vco cowumzpc>m —muwmo—o:oxma
use .u»_F grwzu cw mucus
-umanum wxus ou on: wugo>vu :F
vw>po>:_ wFQoma wmozu Lo zoom
new .mwmopttos o— Atw>w toe
mmugo>vu w «mos—m mum: wgwgu
Aucsou EcgmcH :7 “amp cH

.cwumm w—wmgzox
wx__ 0» can .epmmgzoa toe mpmom
use mam—a m>ug .cvcmo swamp cu
m_npmmoa mm aw .mmw—vcw on cu
w>oz u_cou saga yam .mmw—vcw
Eowm Ame we?" Lao» mo muons same
cw mc_u:wwgmaxw min :0» mmwgum
vcm .=o_m=m=ou .Fvoetzu wee
.:o> to» mmwc_aaugc= mo wswuwew—
m cams on w>nc u.cmwou bmzu

use .mceogo>ww arm :0»

mzomtma a:_ugo>wo Low
select; m:_Pom:=ou <

 

umzo_humm~o :uz

241

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX L

JUDGE WARREN'S SPECIFICATIONS OF FRIEND OF

THE COURT'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE STUDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 7, 1977

Mr. James A. Pocock
Friend of Court

116 W. Ottawa Street
Lansing, MI 48933

Dear Jim:

You recently discussed with me and with the Judges of the
30th Judicial Circuit the prOposal of an individual who is
studying for his doctorate, which proposal encompasses a
plan to interview and counsel divorce litigants on a volun-
tary basis. At the conclusion of the Judges' meeting
(where you were in attendance) it was understood that I
would write you this letter confirming certain basic
understandings in relation to the proposal made.

It is my understanding, and the understanding of my fellow
Judges, that:

(1) It be clearly understood that this individual and
any persons working with him are not agents of the Ingham
County Circuit Court or agents of the Ingham County Friend
of Court Office.

(2) That whether or not divorce litigants choose to
avail themselves of this service will have no bearing what-
soever upon their entitlement to a divorce (stated another
way, participation in the program is no condition precedent
to successful prosecution or defense of a divorce action.)

(3) That this program or project is in no way
financed, in part or in whole, by any federal, state, or
county agency or body.

(4) That the individuals conducting such program or
project will in no way obligate the Circuit Bench or the
County of Ingham for any expenditure of any type or sort.

242

 

 

Mr. James A. Pocock

Page 2
December 7, 1977

(5) That the facilities and the personnel of the
Ingham County Friend of Court shall be utilized in no
fashion whatsoever over and above the making known to the
divorce litigants of the availability of this project or

its services.

(6) That if it is intended that any information
obtained by the operator of the project is to be revealed
to the Ingham County Friend of Court or the Circuit Judges
that appropriate waivers of privilege will be obtained from

the divorce litigants involved.

(7) That this project will be limited to 60 divorce
litigation cases.

(8) That the head of the project will execute a
written acknowledgment of his or her awareness of the fore-

going conditions and provisions.

(9) That the sole consideration running to the project
director is the opportunity to have the Ingham County
Friend of Court Office make available to divorce litigants
knowledge of the availability of the services involved in

the prOgram.

Sincerely,

Jack W. Warren
Chief Circuit Judge

I , acknowledge that I

have read all of the foregoing letter, and I agree to
abide by the terms thereof.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX M

RESUMES OF CLINICIANS

 

 

 

 

NAME:

ADDRESS:

BIRTHDATE:

EDUCATION:

RESUME

EDWARD B. GIBEAU, Ed.D.

1753 Maisonette Drive

Lansing, Michigan 48910

Tel. (517) 394—0621 or 332-7300
April 15, 1946

Doctorate 1975 Western Michigan University
Counseling Psychology

Masters 1972 Western Michigan University
Counseling Psychology

Bachelors 1969 Western Michigan University
Psychology/Sociology

CERTIFICATIONS & AFFILIATIONS:

 

Certified Psychologist - State of Michigan

American Psychological Association
1) Division of Counseling Psychology
2) Division of Psychotherapy

The American Academy of Psychotherapists

Society for Personality Assessment

The American Society of Clinical Hypnosis

AREAS OF EXPERTISE:

1) Psychotherapy

2) Psychodiagnostics

3) Training and Supervision
4) Consultation

RESEARCH & PUBLICATION:

 

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF SELECTED RELATIONSHIPS AMONG
THERAPY ORIENTATIONS, THEORETICAL ORIENTATIONS,
PERSONALITY, AND THERAPIST EFFECTIVENESS. Doctoral
Dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1975.

244

 

 

 

 

245

EDWARD B. GIBEAU, Ed.D. Page 2

CONSULTATION EXPERIENCE:

Department of Social Services, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, Grand Rapids,
Michigan
Blodgett Memorial Medical Center, Grand Rapids,
Michigan
Butterworth Hospital, Grand Rapids, Michigan
St. Mary's Hospital, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Dade County Community Health Association, Miami, Florida
St. Lawrence Hospital, Lansing, Michigan
Department of Public Health, Lansing, Michigan

CLINICAL TRAINING:

1973—1975 Counseling Center
(2000 hours) Western Michigan University

 

Training
1974 Kalamazoo Consultation and Community
(600 hours) Mental Health Clinic
Supervisor: Eugene Ballard, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist
1972-1973 Occupational Health Center: Outpatient
(600 hours) Psychiatric Center

Supervisor: Richard L. Gay, Ph.D.
Director of Clinical

 

Supervisor: Malcolm Robertson, Ph.D.
Consulting Psychologist

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:

February
1978
to Present

July 1978
to Present

(POST-DOCTORAL)

Psychological Evaluation and Treatment
Center, Inc.

Private practice involving individual and
family psychotherapy, assessment, and consul-
tation at the Psychological Evaluation and
Treatment Center, 4990 Northwind Drive,

Suite 235, East Lansing, Michigan.

Michigan State University
Adjunct Professor at Michigan State Univer-

sity, Department of Educational Psychology,
Division of Counseling Psychology.

 

 

 

EDWARD B. GIBEAU, Ed.D. Page 3

July 1977
to July 1978

August 1976
to July 1977

246

The appointment involves teaching a course
entitled Appraisal of Individual Intelligence
and Personality.

Ingham Community Mental Health

Staff appointment as a Clinical Psychologist
at the Ingham Community Mental Health Center,
Lansing, Michigan. This position involved
the following responsibilities:

1) Adult Inpatient

Duties consisted of primary therapist
responsibilities, assessment, individual
therapy and family psychotherapy. In
addition, training and supervision of
medical students, psychiatric residents
and psychology interns were major
responsibilities.

2) Adult Outpatient

Duties consisted of case management,
assessment, psychotherapy and clinical
supervision for medical students

(Michigan State University, Department of
Psychiatry) and psychology interns. Semi-
nars on psychological testing (for MSU
Department of Psychiatry), hypnosis and
assessment (for Psychology Intern program)
were also major responsibilities.

 

University of Miami

Assistant Professor, University of Miami,
Department of Educational Psychology, Divi-
sion of Counseling Psychology, Coral Gables,
Florida.

The appointment involved teaching the following
courses (both doctoral and masters level);

Lab in Mental Testing, Rorschach, Hypnosis,
Advanced Personality Theory, and Individual
Data in Counseling. Practicum teaching and
supervision at the University Extension Center
in the Bahamas were also major responsibilities.

 

 

247

EDWARD B. GIBEAU, Ed.D. Page 4

April 1977
to July 1977

April 1975
to August
1976

February
1975 to
August 1976

Other duties included advisement of graduate
students, involvement on doctoral committees,
supervision of counseling practicum students,
direction of the field experience-internship
program, participation on numerous depart—
mental and university committees, and consul—
tation with a variety of community agencies.

Biscayne College

Adjunct Professor, Biscayne College, Family
Life Center, Miami, Florida. A course
entitled Psychopathology and Behavior
change was taught.

Western Michigan University

Adjunct Professor at Western Michigan Uni-
versity, Kalamazoo, Michigan. Duties
included teaching the following courses:
Techniques of Counseling and Personality
Theory.

Kent Oaks Psychiatric Hospital

Staff appointment as a Psychologist at the
Kent Oaks Psychiatric Hospital, Grand Rapids,
Michigan. This position involved the
following responsibilities:

1) Adult Inpatient

Duties consisted of primary treatment and
management of acute psychiatric
inpatients. Treatment responsibilities
included individual and group therapy,
direction of psychodiagnostic program,
monitoring of psychotropic medication,

all non—medical orders, emergency admis-
sions and routine discharges. Additional
responsibilities were training and super—
vision for medical, nursing and psychology
students; consultation services to several
community hospital emergency rooms and
outpatient units; and involvement with

the court system regarding such matters as
guardianships, involuntary commitments,
etc.

 

EDWARD B. GIBEAU, Ed.D.

1973-
1975

1974

248
Page 5

2) Adult Outpatient

Duties consisted of primary management and
treatment of adult outpatients. Treatment
responsibilities included individual and
group psychotherapy, psychodiagnostics,
staff training and consultation, super-
vision of counseling and psychology
interns, emergency consultation, routine
consultation to Day Treatment Center and
monitoring of psychotropic medication.

(PREDOCTORAL LEVEL)
University Counseling Center

Internship and staff appointment to Western
Michigan University Counseling Center in
Kalamazoo, Michigan. Responsibilities con—
sisted of individual and group psychotherapy,
psychodiagnostics and consultation. In
addition, there was participation in a com—
prehensive outreach program which assisted
students with emotional disorders and provided
training and consultation to staff.

Community Mental Health

Internship at the Kalamazoo Consultation
Center in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Responsibili—
ties included individual psychotherapy,
psychodiagnostics and consultation to various
community and government agencies.

 

 

 

249

VITA
William M. Griz
519 E. Edgewood Blvd.
Apt. #709
Lansing, Michigan 48910
(517) 394—6899
PERSONAL DATA
Birth Date: November 30, 1946
Family Status: Single
Physical Status: Height 5'11" Weight 155 lbs.
Health: Excellent
EDUCATION
Institution Major Degree Date
Michigan State Univ. Counseling (candidate) 1973—
East Lansing, MI Psychology Ph.D. present

The Ph.D. program in Counseling Psychology is administered
through the college of Education and is an A.P.A. approved
program emphasizing clinical and teaching skills. Occa—
sionally, provisions are made within the counseling depart—
ment to admit students to the doctoral level of study
directly from the undergraduate level. Due to my work
experience and undergraduate record I was allowed to bypass
a masters program and was admitted directly to the doctoral
program in Counseling Psychology.

 

 

With a department as large as Michigan State's, no one
theoretical approach prevails. The affective and relation-
ship oriented approaches are emphasized, but each student is
encouraged to adopt a theoretical approach which best
matches their own particular characteristics. My own
interests focus on a bio—social approach with experience and
training in Psychoanalysis, Gestalt, Rational Emotive,
Transactional Analysis, and Bioenergetics.

Michigan State Univ. Psychology B.S. 1969—1973
East Lansing, MI with honors

My undergraduate work in psychology included an emphasis in
philosophy and 36 independent study credits in psychology,
sociology, anthropology, and group work.

250

LICENSE

Licensed Limited Psychologist, State of MIchigan
I.D. # 001530

EXPERIENCE-CLINICAL/CONSULTATION/COMMUNITY

Date: October 1, 1978—Present

Lansing Medical Service, P.C.

405 W. Greenlawn

Suite 210

Lansing, Michigan 48910

Position: Consultant

Description: Individual, marital, and group therapy on
an outpatient basis.

Date: October l973—October 1978

Psychological Evaluation and Treatment Center

3401 E. Saginaw St.

Suite 210

Lansing, Michigan 48912

Position: Consultant

Description: PETC is a private corporation which is
approved by Blue Cross as a provider of out-
patient mental health services. I was involved
as a consultant and provided individual, mari-
tal, and group treatment (including psycholo-
gical assessment) on an outpatient basis. I
also participated in regularly scheduled case
conferences and staff seminars on various
areas of interest.

Supervisor: Rom Kriauciunas, Ph.D.

Executive Secretary, Board of Directors, PETC, Dec. 1976.

Member, Community Advisory Board, Open Door Crisis Center.
June 1977.

Member, Task Force on Domestic Violence. July 1977. The
task force was brought together by the Ingham
County Women's Commission and the Sister's For
Human Equality and is a group of lay and professional
people who are working to establish a temporary
shelter for battered women in the Lansing area.

Founding member, Michigan Seminar for Men. March 1977.

 

 

251

Member, Board of Directors, Men's Resource Center, Inc.
LanSing, MI. October 1977.

Consultant (gratis), Ingham County Prosecutor's Office.
Working to establish an evaluation and
accountability model to assist in the
development of the Prosecution Diver—
sion Program on domestic assault.

Date: May 1975-July 1975

House of Commons

517 N. Walnut

Lansing, Michigan 48910

Position: Consultant

Description: The House of Commons is a residential treatment
program for heroin and alcohol addiction. I
was contracted to evaluate the treatment staff,
focusing on interviewing, individual and group
counseling and supervision skills, and to make
recommendations for training needs. I was
also involved at the program level, to improve
interagency communication with the criminal
justice system and to propose structural
changes to improve program accountability.

Date: July 1974—July 1975

Open Door Crisis Center, Inc.

1320 S. Washington Ave.

Lansing, Michigan 48910

Position: Consulting Psychologist

Description: The Open Door is a crisis center which provides
crisis counseling on both a telephone and
walk—in basis. I was contracted to provide
consultation services to the volunteer and
paid staff. I also designed and implemented a
program to train members of the center who had
attained the position of crisis intervention
trainer, in group process and coping group
leadership skills.

Date: Oct. l973—June 1974

Comprehensive Drug Treatment Program

300 N. Washington Square

Lansing, Michigan 48933

Position: Program Specialist . '
Description: The CDTP is a group of ten programs conSisting
of five crisis centers, a reSidential treatment
program, a methadone maintenance and detox1fi—
cation program, a drug abuse treatment program

 

 

 

 

at the Ingham County Jail, and two educa—
tionally oriented programs. I was employed to
evaluate each of the programs in terms of
staff resources and skills in the treatment of
drug abusers and to design and implement a
training program which would upgrade existing
skills to conform to regulations which were
about to be adopted by the State of Michigan
for licensing drug treatment facilities.

Date: Nov. 1971-Oct. 1973

Ingham Community Mental Health Center

401 W. Greenlawn

Lansing, Michigan 48910

Position: Mental Health Worker

Description: The mental health center consisted of five
services and functioned on a rotational basis.
I was assigned to the Activity Center, a par—
tial hospitalization program, and then a por—
tion of my time was rotated through the other
services. Duties included adjunctive therapy
groups, emergency crisis intervention on both
a telephone and walk—in basis, and an out-
patient caseload which involved individual
and group therapy.

Supervisors: Patricia Updyke, Ph.D.
Rom Kriauciunas, Ph.D.

EXPERIENCE-TEACHING

FCS 495 Training of Group Facilitators. Fall, 1972, _
Michigan State Univ. Taught in conjunction With
Paul Weikert.

HEC 419 Human Sexuality. Winter, 1972, Central Michigan
Univ. Taught in conjunction with Paul Weikert.

HEC 419 Same, Spring, 1973.

ED 881 Workshop in Education: Interpersonal Relationships
with Teachers. Spring, 1974, Michigan State
University Continuing Education.

HEC 511 Human Sexuality. Fall, 1975, Central Michigan
University.

PSY 202 Personality Theory. Spring, 1976, Lansing
Community College.

 

 

 

 

253

EXPERIENCE-TEACHING CONTINUED

 

 

 

PSY 200 Introduction to Psychology. Fall, 1976, Lansing
Community College. Two sections.

PSY 200 Same, Winter, 1977.
PSY 202 Same, Winter, 1977.

PSY 202 Same, Fall, 1977.

ADDITIONAL TRAINING AND EDUCATION

 

Training in Transactional Analysis

Date: Sept. 1973-June 1974

Content: Participation in a nine month seminar on Trans-
actional Analysis. The seminar is essentially
composed of working professionals and is a weekly
six hour peer-group supervised experience in
theory and treatment.

Training in Character Disorders

Date: Nov. 1973

Content: A one week live—in experience at Asklepion
Foundation and Marion Federal Penitentiary,
Carbondale, Illinois. Training in Synanon con-
frontation, development, diagnosis, and treatment
of character disorders.

Training on Schizophrenia and Regression

Date: Dec. 1973

Content: A one week live-in experience at Cathexis Insti-
tute, Alamo, Calif. Training in development,
diagnosis, and treatment of psychosis including
passivity confrontation and reparenting through
supported regressions.

REFERENCES

References available upon request.

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX N

SUMMARY OF ANOVAS FOR TEST OF HYPOTHESIS 5,
F-VALUES, ASSOCIATED PROBABILITIES, AND
GROUP MEANS FOR EACH ROLE CATEGORY

CONTAINED IN THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Role: Intellectually

Sources of Variance d.f. F p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 1.80 .187
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/
Control Interaction 1,40 11.85 .001*
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 .012 .915

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

 

 

 

Pretest 73.42 79.61
Posttest 81.23 76.19
*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

Role: Single Person

Sources of Variance d.f. F p"
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1:40 9.81 .003*
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/
Control Interaction 1:40 25.62 <.0005*

1,40 1.04 .313

Experimental/Control Main Effect

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

Pretest 74.80

Posttest 88.76

77.52

74.23

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

254

 

 

 

 

 

 

—. ~_-__ “ “ ”34.43 :he-V3? -‘ - ~. . ~ .' .

 

255

Role: Goal Setter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources of Variance d.f. F p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1.40 .910 .346
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/

Control Interaction 1,40 9,30 .004*
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 .059 .810
Mean Scores

Experimental Group Control Group
Pretest 69.33 77.66
Posttest 78.42 72.90
*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.
Role: Sexually

Sources of Variance d.f. F_ E
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 2.61 .113
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/ *
Control Interaction 1.40 4.60 .038
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 .635 .430

Mean Scores
Experimental Group Control Group
Pretest 74.28 74.42
Posttest 83.47 73.14

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

256

Role: Spiritually

 

 

Sources of Variance d.f. E p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 5.14 .029*
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/

Control Interaction 1,40 5.04 .030*
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 .022 .883

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

 

 

 

Pretest 65.09 69.23
Posttest 75.38 69.28
*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

Role: Employee

Sources of Variance d.f. F E
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 .457 .503
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/
Control Interaction 1,40 3 40 072
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 3.23 .080

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

Pretest 91.38

Posttest 97.95

86.95

83.90

 

 

 

 

 

 

257

Role: Host/Hostess

 

Sources of Variance

 

d.f. F B
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 1.95 .170
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/
Control Interaction 1,40 2.88 .097
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 4.98 .031*

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

 

 

 

Pretest 86.23 78.33
Posttest 94.09 77.57
*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

Role: Sportsperson

Sources of Variance d.f E p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1.40 .738 .395
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/
Control Interaction 1:40 .129 .721

1,40 .065 .800

Experimental/Control Main Effect

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

Pretest 75.33

Posttest 78.23

74.42

75.61

 

 

 

 

'w \.‘d'g_h .n— .__

258

Role: Friend

 

 

Sources of Variance d.f. F p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 2.65 .111
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/

Control Interaction 1,40 8.75 .005*
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1'40 .717 .402

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

 

 

 

Pretest 83.76 86.80
Posttest 94.76 83.61
*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

Role: Disciplinarian

Sources of Variance d.f. _F E
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 4.31 .044*
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/
Control Interaction 1,40 5.20 .028*
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 .027 .870

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

Pretest 75.33

Posttest 85.47

79.66

79.19

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

 

 

 

 

 

259

Role: Homemaker

 

 

Sources of Variance d.f. _§ 2
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1.40 7.60 .009*
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/

Control Interaction 1,40 7.80 .008*
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 .688 .412

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

 

 

 

Pretest 71.52 83.90
Posttest 86.42 83.80
*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

Role: Now with Former Spouse

Sources of Variance d.f. E, p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 4.93 .032*
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/
Control Interaction 1:40 4.56 .039*
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1:40 1.74 .194

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

Pretest 59.47

Posttest 71.90

59.04

59.28

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of

.05.

 

 

 

 

 

 

260

Role: Parent

 

 

Sources of Variance d.f. F p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 1.87 .179
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/

Control Interaction 1.40 11.94 .001*
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 .927 .341

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

 

 

 

Pretest 78.19 91.95
Posttest 89.52 87.04
*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

Role: Was in the Past with Former Spouse

Sources of Variance d.f. F_ p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1:40 .375 .544
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/
Control Interaction 1:40 .855 .361
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 1.426 .240

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

Pretest 68.71

Posttest 69.28

77.52

74.71

 

 

 

 

. . A_ UH ‘zs- ,,-

261

Role: Social Situations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources of Variance d.f. F p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 2.088 .156
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/

Control Interaction 1:40 9.586 .004*
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 .177 .676
Mean Scores

Experimental Group Control Group
Pretest 74.19 78.66
Posttest 84.14 75.04
*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.
Role: Meeting Expenses

Sources of Variance d.f. F B
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 5.780 .021*
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/

Control Interaction 1,40 3.259 .079
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 .191 .664
Mean Scores

Experimental Group Control Group
Pretest 77.38 79.28
Posttest 88.42 80.85

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX 0

SUMMARY OF ANOVAS FOR TEST OF HYPOTHESIS 6,
F-VALUES, ASSOCIATED PROBABILITIES, AND
GROUP MEANS FOR THE SIXTEEN FACTORS

OF THE l6PF

 

 

 

 

Factor A

Sten Score

 

 

 

 

 

Reserved, Detached, 1 10 Outgoing, Warm—
Aloof, Stiff hearted, Easy—going,
(Sizothymia) Participating
(Affectothymia)
Sources of Variance d.f. F_ p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1'40 9.16 .004*
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/

Control Interaction 1,40 7.33 .010*
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1:40 .002 .967
Mean Scores

Experimental Group Control Group
Pretest 4.76 5.19
Posttest 5.61 5.23

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

262

 

 

 

 

Factor B

263

Sten Scores

 

 

 

Less Intelligent, l 10 More Intelligent,
Concrete-Thinking, Abstract Thinking,
(Lower Scholastic Bright (Higher
Mental Capacity) Scholastic Mental
Capacity)

Sources of Variance d.f .F E
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 .692 .410
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/

Control Interaction 1,40 1 08 .305
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 .450 .506

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

Pretest

Posttest

5.47

5.42

4.95

5.38

 

 

 

 

 

264

Factor C

Sten Scores
Affected by l 10
Feelings, Emotionally
Less Stable, Easily

Emotionally Stable,
Mature, Faces
Reality, Calm

 

 

Upset (Low Ego (Higher Ego
Strength) Strength)

Sources of Variance d.f. E p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1’40 10.23 .003*
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/

Control Interaction 1'40 3.04 .089
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1:40 100 .754

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

Pretest 3.80

Posttest 4.61

3.

4.

95

19

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of

.05.

 

 

 

________T

 

 

 

Factor E
Sten Scores

Humble, Mild, 1 10 Assertive, Aggres-
EaSily Led, Docile, sive, Stubborn,
Accommodating Competitive
(Submissiveness) (Dominance)

Sources of Variance d.f. E p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1:40 2.94 .094
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/
Control Interaction ll40 1.58 .216
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 .012 .913

 

Mean Scores

 

Experimental Group Control Group

 

Pretest 5.47 5.66

Posttest 6.09 5.76

 

 

 

’1

 

 

 

266
Factor F
Sten Scores

Sober, Tactiturn, l 10 Happy—Go—Lucky,
Serious Enthusiastic
(Desurgency) (Surgency)

Sources of Variance d.f. F p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1:40 5.72 .022*
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/
Control Interaction 1:40 3.34 .075
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 .956 .334

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

 

Control Group

 

Pretest 5.57

Posttest 6.28

5.38

5.47

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of

.05.

 

 

 

Factor G

Sten Scores
Expedient, Dis- 1
regards Rules
(Weak Superego
Strength)

Sources of Variance

10 Conscientious,
Persistent, Morally
Staid (Stronger
Superego Strength)

 

Pretest/Posttest Main Effect

Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/
Control Interaction

Experimental/Control Main Effect

d.f. F_ 2

1,40 .016 .901
1,40 1.26 268
1,40 .002 .962

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

Pretest 5.47

Posttest 5.28

5.23

5.47

 

 

 

 

 

268

 

 

 

Factor H
. Sten Scores

Shy, Timid, Threat— 1 10 Venturesome, Un-
SenSitive inhibited, Socially
(Threctia) Bold (Parmia)

Sources of Variance d.f. F p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 9.48 .004*
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/
Control Interaction 1,40 3.41 .072
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 .116 .736

 

Mean Scores

 

Experimental Group Control Group
Pretest 4.71 4.90
Posttest 5.66 5.14

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factor I

Sten Scores

 

Tough—Minded,
Self—Reliant

10 Tenderminded,
Sensitive, Clinging,

 

 

Realistic Overprotected
Sources of Variance d.f. F p

Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1:40 .099 .755

Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/

Control Interaction 1,40 .011 .917

Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 5.64 .022*

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

Pretest 5.61

Posttest 5.71

4.52

4.57

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factor L

Sten Scores
Trusting, Accept- 1 10 Suspicious, Hard
ing Conditions to Fool (Proten-
(Alaxia) sion)

Sources of Variance d.f. F p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 .778 .383
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/

Control Interaction 1,40 .049 .827
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 2.772 .104
Mean Scores

Experimental Group Control Group
Pretest 5.61 6.52

Posttest 5.38 6.38

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

271

Factor M

Sten Scores

 

Practical, Down— 1
to—Earth
(Praxernia)

10 Imaginative,
Bohemian, Absent-
Minded (Autia)

 

 

Sources of Variance d.f. F p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1'40 7.398 .010*
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/

Control Interaction 1,40 1.660 .205
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 2.520 .120

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

Pretest 5.33

Posttest 6.00

4.80

5.04

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factor N

Sten Scores
Forthright, Un- l 10 Astute, Polished,
pretentious, Socially Aware
Genuine, But Socially (Shrewdness)
Clumsy (Artlessness)

Sources of Variance d f. F p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 .007 .934
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/

Control Interaction 1,40 .062 .805
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 .719 .402

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

Pretest 5.66

Posttest 5.76

5.28

5.23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factor 0
Sten Scores
SelffAssured, l 10 Apprensive, Self-
PlaCid, Secure, Reproaching, In-
Serene (Un- secure, Worrying,
troubled Adequacy) Troubled (Guilt
Proneness)

Sources of Variance d.f. F E
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 6.572 .014*
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/

Control Interaction 1,40 5.380 .026*
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1’40 .097 .758
Mean Scores

Experimental Group Control Group
Pretest 7.42 6.80
Posttest 6.47 6.76

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

 

 

 

 

274

 

 

 

Factor Ql
Sten Scores

Conservative, l 10 Experimental,
Respecting Liberal, Free-
Traditional Ideas, Thinking
Conservatism of
Temperament

Sources of Variance d.f. F p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 .000 1.000
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/
Control Interaction 1,40 .170 .682
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 .059 .810

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

Pretest 6.09

Posttest 6.00

6.14

6.23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

275

 

 

 

Factor Q2
Sten Scores

Group—Dependent, l 10 Self—Sufficient,
A Joiner and Resourceful, Pre—
Sound-Follower fers Own Decisions
(Group Adherence) (Self-Sufficiency)

Sources of Variance d.f. F p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 8.384 .006*
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/
Control Interaction 1,40 .524 .473
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1:40 .847 .363

 

Mean Scores

 

Experimental Group Control Group
Pretest 6.52 5.90
Posttest 5.80 5.47

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

 

 

 

 

 

276

 

 

 

Factor Q3
Sten Scores

Undisciplined 1 10 Controlled,
Self—Conflict, Exacting Will
Lax, Follow Own Power, Socially
Urges (Low Precise, Compulsive,
Integration) (High Strength of

Self-Sentiment)

Sources of Variance d.f. E_ p

Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1:40 12.457 .001*
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/
Control Interaction 1:40 3.612 .065
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 .988 .326

 

Mean Scores

 

Experimental Group Control Group
Pretest 4.23 5.28
Posttest 5.66 5.71

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

 

 

 

 

277

Factor Q4

Sten Scores

 

Relaxed, Tranquil, 1
Unfrustrated, Com-
posed (Low Ergic

10 Tense, Frustrated,
Driven, Over—
wrought (High Ergic

 

 

Tension) Tension)

Sources of Variance d.f. F p
Pretest/Posttest Main Effect 1,40 8.002 .007*
Pretest/Posttest by Experimental/

Control Interaction 1:40 2.750 .105
Experimental/Control Main Effect 1,40 .103 .750

 

Mean Scores

Experimental Group

Control Group

 

Pretest 6.85

Posttest 5.76

6.61

6.33

 

*Significant at an Alpha level of .05.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX P

WEIGHTS AND CONSTANTS APPLIED TO PRIMARY
FACTOR STEN SCORES TO OBTAIN SECOND-

STRATUM FACTOR SCORES OF THE 16PF

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX P

WEIGHTS AND CONSTANTS APPLIED TO PRIMARY
FACTOR STEN SCORES TO OBTAIN SECOND-
STRATUM FACTOR SCORES OF THE 16PF

(Combined Weights--for Samples with Both Men and Women)

 

 

 

CORTERTIA = Pathemia vs. Cortertia factor
INDEP = Subduedness vs. Independence factor

Factors A-Q4 = 16 primary factors

278

EXVIA PFANX CORTERTIA INDEP

Factor A .22 .03 -.48 .02
B .01 -.02 -.01 .05
C .02 -.24 .08 -.02
E .20 -.03 .27 .47
F .38 .01 .27 -.02
G .10 .05 -.06 -.12
H .34 -.10 .27 .09
I —.O4 .04 -.41 .03
L .03 .12 .18 .18
M -.03 -.O7 -.04 .29
N -.12 00 -.07 -.12
O -.07 .29 -.13 -.17
Q1 00 -.O4 -.10 .28
Q2 -.26 -.O3 .06 .22
Q3 -.02 -.ll -.01 .02
Q4 .12 .37 .12 -.O8

Constant 0.66 4.02 5.83 —.66

LEGEND

EXVIA = Invia vs. Exvia factor

PFANX = Adjustment Vs. Anxiety factor

 

 

 

 

:‘s-‘w — .—.~

APPENDIX Q

SUMMARY OF THE CLINICIANS' REVIEWS REGARDING THE
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP SUBJECTS' PROGRESS

IN THERAPY

 

 

 

APPENDIX Q

SUMMARY OF THE CLINICIANS' REVIEWS REGARDING THE
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP SUBJECTS' PROGRESS

IN THERAPY

The summaries provided by the clinicians regarding
the progress made by the experimental group subjects seemed
to fall into four general categories: (1) reduction of
anxiety, (2) enhancement of self-esteem, (3) the beginning
of redefining goals for their lives, and (4) beginning to
perceive and accept themselves as single individuals rather
than married individuals. Interestingly, the clinicians
did not highlight changes in general personality adjustment,
perceptions of self in various roles, or perceptions of self
in social or interpersonal contexts.

The Clinicians' summaries varied from subject to
subject, and very frequently a number of changes within
subjects were noted. The following breakdown of subject-
by-category, however, is based on the predominant change
cited for each subject. Subjects 1, 3, 4, 10, 16, 18, and
21 were perceived by the clinicians as benefitting from

therapy primarily through the reduction of anxiety. This

279

 

 

 

280

group was made up of six women and one man. Subjects 2, 5,
8, 9, 11, and 15 were perceived by the clinicians as
improving primarily through the enhancement of their self-
esteem. This group was made up of three men and three
women. Subjects 6, 7, l3, and 20 were perceived by the
clinicians as improving primarily by redefining goals and
directions for their lives. This group was made up of all
women. Subjects 12, 14, 17, and 19 were perceived by the
clinicians as benefitting from therapy primarily by beginning
to perceive and accept themselves as single individuals
rather than married individuals. This group was made up of

two men and two women.

 

 

 

 

LI ST OF REFERENCES

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

Allport, G. Pattern and growth in personality. New York:
Holt Rinehart, & Winston, 1961.

 

Ausubel, D. F. Theory and problems of child development.
New York: Grune & Stratton, 1958.

 

Baguedor, E. Separation: A journal of a marriage. New
York: Simon & Schuster, 1972.

 

Barringer, K. D. Self-perception of quality of adjustment
of single parents in divorce, participating in
Parents Without Partners organizations. Disserta-
tation Abstracts International, 1974, 34 (7-A),
4446-4447. ‘—

 

Barten, H. H. Brief therapies. New York: Behavioral Pub-
lications, 1971.

 

Beck, B. M. Short-term therapy in an authoritative setting.
New York: Family Service Association of America,
1946.

Bellak, L., & Small, L. Emergency psychotherapy and brief
psychotherapy. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1965.

 

Blair, M. Divorcees' adjustment and attitudinal changes
about life. Dissertation Abstracts International,

1970, g9, 5541-5542.

Bohannan, P. Divorce and after: An analysis of the
emotional and social problems of divorce. New York:

Doubleday, 1970.
Bronfenbrenner, U. The changing American family. Paper

presented at the meeting of the Society for Research
in Child Development, Denver, April 1975.

281

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

Allport, G. Pattern and growth in personalipy. New York:
Holt Rinehart, & Winston, 1961.

 

Ausubel, D. F. Theory and problems of child development.
New York: Grune & Stratton, 1958.

Baguedor, E. Separation: Ajournal of a marriage. New
York: Simon & Schuster, 1972.

 

Barringer, K. D. Self-perception of quality of adjustment
of single parents in divorce, participating in
Parents Without Partners organizations. Disserta-
tation Abstracts International, 1974, 34 (7-A),
4446-4447.

 

Barten, H. H. Brief therapies. New York: Behavioral Pub—
lications, 1971.

 

Beck, B. M. Short-term therapy in an authoritative setting.

New York: Family Service Association of America,
1946.

Bellak, L., & Small, L. Emergency psychotherapy and brief
psychotherapy. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1965.

 

Blair, M. Divorcees' adjustment and attitudinal changes
about life. Dissertation Abstracts International,
1970, 30, 5541-5542.

Bohannan, P. Divorce and after: An analysis of the
emotional and social problems of divorce. New York:
Doubleday, 1970.

 

 

Bronfenbrenner, U. The changing American family. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Society for Research
in Child Development, Denver, April 1975.

 

281

 

 

 

 

 

 

282

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and guasi—
experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1963.

 

Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. Handbook
for the 16PF. Champaign: Institute for Personality
and Ability Testing, 1970.

Colgrove, M., Bloomfield, H., & McWilliams, P. How to
survive the loss of a love. New York: Leo Press,
1976.

 

Coopersmith, S. The antecedents of self—esteem. San
Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1967.

 

Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. The approval motive. New York:
Wiley, 1964.

Edwards, M., & Hoover, E. The challenge of being single.
New York: Hawthorne, 1974.

Eisler, R. T. Dissolution. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977.

Epstein, J. Divorced in America: Marriage in an age of
possibility. New York: Penguin, 1974.

Fey, W. F. Acceptance by others and its relation to
acceptance of self and others: A reevaluation.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 59
(2), 274—276.

 

Fisher, B. F. Identifying and meeting needs of formerly
married people through a divorce adjustment seminar.
Published Doctor of Education Dissertation, Uni-
versity of Northern Colorado, 1976.

Fisher, E. 0. Divorce: The new freedom. Scranton: Harper
& Row, 1974.

 

Frohlich, N. Making the best of it: A common sensepguide
to negotiating a divorce. New York: Harper & '
Row, 1971.

 

 

Fuller, J. The scrapbook of my divorce. New York: Arthur
Fields Books, 1973.

 

Gettleman, S., & Markowitz, J. The courage to divorce.
New York: Simon & Schuster, 1974.'

 

Glick, P. C. Dissolution of marriage by divorce and its
demographic consequences. International Population
Conference, 1973, 2, 65-79.

 

 

 

 

 

 

283

Good, L. R., & Good, K. C. A preliminary measure of
existential anxiety. Ppychological Reports, 1974,
34, 72—74.

 

Goode, W. J. Women in divorce. New York: The Free Press,
1956.

 

Gordon, S. Lonely in America. New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1976.

 

Hackney, G. R. Divorce process and psychological adjust-
ment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1975,
31 (OB-B), 1434.

 

Hetherington, E. M. Personal communication, December 6,
1977.

Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. Stress and coping
in divorce: A focus on women. Paper presented at a
symposium on divorce at Michigan State University,
East Lansing, July 1977.

Hoch, P. H. Short-term versus long-term therapy. In
L. R. Wolberg (Ed.), Short-term psychotherapy. New
York: Grune & Stratton, 1965.

 

Horrocks, J. B., & Jackson, D. W. Self and role: A theory
of self-process and role behavior. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1972.

 

Hunt, M. M. The world of the formerly married. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1966.

 

Ingham County Clerk's Office. Personal communication,
August 18, 1977.

Ingham County Clerk's Office. Personal communication,
January 18, 1979.

Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Manual for
the 16PF. Champaign: Institute for Personality and
Ability Testing, 1972.

 

 

James, W. The principles of psychology. Chicago: Ency-
clopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952. (Great Books Edition
of work released in 1890.)

 

Kessler, S. The American way of divorce: Prescription for
change. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1975.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Klein, D., & Lindemann, E. Preventive intervention in indi-
vidual and family crisis situations. In G. Caplan
(Ed.), Prevention of mental disorders in children.
New York: Basic Books, 1961.

Krantzler, M. Creative divorce. New York: M. Evans &
Company, 1974.

 

Lecky, P. Self-consistency, a theorypof personality. New
York: Island Press, 1945.

Levin, K. K. Brief encounters: Brief_psychotherapy. St.
Louis: W. H. Green, 1970.

 

Levinger, G. A social psychological perspective on marital
dissolution. Journal of Social Issues, 1976, 33
(1), 21-48.

 

Mackey, R. A. Crisis theory: Its development and relevance
to social casework practice. Family Life Coordinator,
1968, 31, 165—168.

 

Madsen, D. Personal communication, November, 1978.

Malan, D. H. The frontier of briefpsychotherapy. New
York: Plenum Medical Books Company, 1976.

 

Mann, J. Time-limited psychotherapy. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1973.

 

Morris, J. D., & Prescott, M. R. Transition groups, an
approach to dealing with post-partnership anguish.
Fami1y_Coordinator, 1975, 33, 325-330.

 

Moustakas, C. The self. New York: Harper & Row, 1956.

 

Muench, G. A. An investigation of time-limited psycho-
therapy. American Psychologist, 1964, 33, 325-330.

 

Napolitane, C., & Pellegino, V. Living and loving after

 

 

 

 

divorce. New York: Rawson Associates Publishers,
1977.
Osgood, C., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. Measurement
of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press,
1957.

Parker, R. S. Emotional common sense: How to avoid self-
destructiveness. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.

 

 

Phillips, E. L., & Johnston, M. H. S. Theoretical and clini—
cal aspects of short-term, parent-child psychotherapy.
Psychiatry, 1954, 2, 267—275.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phillips, E. L., & Wiener, D. N. Short-term psychotherapy
and structural behavior change. New York: McGraw—
Hill, 1966.

Raschke, H. Social and psychological factors in postmarital
dissolution adjustment. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1975, 33 (8-A), 5549-5550.

 

Rogers, C. R. Client—centered therapy. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1951.

 

Rosenberg, M. Society and the adolescent self-image.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965.

Shlein, J. M., Mosak, H. H., & Dreikiers, R. Effects of
time-limits: A comparison of two psychotherapies.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1962, 3, 31-34.

 

Silber, B., & Tippett, J. Self-esteem: Clinical assess-
ment and measurement validation. Psychological
Reports, 1965, 33, 1017, 1071.

 

Singleton, M. A. Life after marriage: Divorce as a new
beginning. New York: Stein & Day, 1974.”

 

 

Small, L. The brieferpsychotherapies. New York: Brunner/
Mazel, 1971.

 

Stekel, W. Technique of analytical psychotherapy. London:
Bodley Head, 1950.

 

Visher, J. S. Brief psychotherapy in a mental hygiene
clinic. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1959,
33, 331-342.

 

Waller, W. W. The old love and the new: Divorce and re—
adjustment. New York: H. Liveright, 1930.

 

 

Waller, W. W., & Hill, R. The family, a dynamic interpre-
tation. New York: Dryden Press, 1951.

 

Watson, D., & Friend, R. Measurement of social—evaluative
anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 1969, 33, 448-457.

 

 

wayne, G. J., & Koegler, R. R. Emergency paychiatry and
brief therapy. Boston: Little Brown, 1966.

 

 

weiss, R. S. Marital separation. New York: Basic Books,
1975.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

286

Weiss, R. S. The emotional impact of marital separation.
Journal of Social Issues, 1976, 33 (1), 135-146.
Wolberg, L. R. Short-term psychotherapy. New York: Grune &

Stratton, 1965.
Wylie, R. C. The self-concept. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 1961 and 1974 editions.
Zuckerman, M. The development of an affect adjective check-
list for measurement of anxiety. Journal of Con-
sulting Psychology, 1960, 34, 457-462.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

5«11111171111111