Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjfp20 Download by: [Bar-Ilan University] Date: 04 March 2016, At: 08:46 Journal of Family Psychotherapy ISSN: 0897-5353 (Print) 1540-4080 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjfp20 Attachment and Divorce Ricky Finzi PhD , Orna Cohen PhD & Anca Ram MD To cite this article: Ricky Finzi PhD , Orna Cohen PhD & Anca Ram MD (2000) Attachment and Divorce, Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 11:1, 1-20, DOI: 10.1300/J085v11n01_01 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J085v11n01_01 Published online: 12 Oct 2008. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 422 View related articles Citing articles: 7 View citing articles
Transcript
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjfp20
Download by: [Bar-Ilan University] Date: 04 March 2016, At: 08:46
ABSTRACT. This paper, based on the literature on divorce and onattachment and on the authors’ clinical experience as family therapists,argues that the interaction of the spouses’ attachment styles stronglyaffects the emotional and behavioral processes involved in their separa-tion and divorce. Using Ainsworth’s taxonomy of secure, anxious/am-bivalent, and avoidant attachment styles, it presents six types of coupleswith different combinations of these styles (3× 2) and draws a pictureof the dynamics of each that are likely to develop in the divorce pro-cess. It also discusses issues related to therapeutic and legal interven-tion for each type of couple. [Article copies available for a fee from TheHaworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address:[email protected] <Website: http://www.haworthpressinc.com>]
Divorce is a prolonged process starting with distress and dissatis-faction in the marriage and ending in acceptance of and adjustment to
Ricky Finzi is affiliated with the Bob Shapell School of Social Work, Tel AvivUniversity, Tel Aviv, Israel, and Geha Psychiatric Hospital, Petah Tikva, Israel.
Orna Cohen is affiliated with the Bob Shapell School of Social Work, Tel AvivUniversity, Tel Aviv, Israel, and the Family Mediation Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Anca Ram is affiliated with the Weight and Eating Disorders Center, Seba Medi-cal Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
Address correspondence to: Ricky Finzi, Bob Shapell School of Social Work, TelAviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel-Aviv, 69978, Israel (E-mail: rikifnz@ post.tau.ac.il).
Journal of Family Psychotherapy, Vol. 11(1) 2000E 2000 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 1
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY2
the separation (Kitson & Morgan, 1990; Pledge, 1992). Numerousattempts have been made to account for the differences in dealing withthe divorce process. Demographic variables (e.g., economic status,education, number of children) and divorced related variables (e.g.,years of marriage, who initiated the divorce, adversarial or mediatoryprocedures) have both been researched (Booth & Amato, 1992; Die-drich, 1991; Emery, 1994; Kaslow & Schwartz, 1987). Conspicuousby its absence is any substantial body of literature that explores therelationship between the personalities of the divorcing spouses andhow they go about their separation. This absence is striking in light ofthe recognized role of personal factors in coping with and adjusting todivorce (e.g., Berman, 1988; Birnbaum, Orr, Mikulincer & Florian,1997; Cohen, 1995).
This paper suggests that attachment theory can provide insight intothe dynamics of the divorce transition. Attachment theory is con-cerned with the role that the nature of persons’ bonds of affection, orattachments, play in the shaping, maintenance, and breaking of theirinterpersonal relationships (Birnbaum et al., 1997; Hazan & Shaver,1994). Other than death, divorce is probably the quintessential separa-tion experience. All or most divorcing people struggle with the psy-chological separation from their spouses and with the need to relin-quish the strong emotional bonds that had developed in their courtshipand marriage. It has been suggested that of the many elements in-volved in divorce, the basic fact of the dissolution of the relationshipand the losses that ensue may be the most stressful (Pledge, 1992;Berman, 1985, 1988-a).
The paper is a theoretical study based on both the literature onattachment and divorce and on our clinical experience. The basiccontention of the paper is that individuals with different patternsof attachment will experience and deal differently with the divorcecrisis, and that the interaction of the attachment patterns of the twospouses will produce distinctive divorce dynamics. Its aim is tohelp clinicians and the social services to recognize the deeperprocesses behind divorce interactions and to plan differential in-terventions for the various types of divorcing spouses and theirchildren.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
Finzi, Cohen, and Ram 3
ATTACHMENT THEORY AND ITS IMPLICATIONSFOR ADULT RELATIONSHIPS
The core of attachment theory is that the nature of the attachmentrelationship the infant forms with its mother or other primary caregiv-er is internalized as a working model, which determines the nature ofhis or her adult relationships. The theory maintains that the nature ofearly attachments affects not only the individual’s emerging self-con-cept and view of the social world (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1977, 1980,1988), but also their social capacities, sense of well-being, and subse-quent relationships (Collins & Read, 1990).
Based on Bowlby’s theory and their own observations, Ainsworth,Blehar, Waters and Wall (1978) proposed a taxonomy of three mainattachment patterns--secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent-formedon the basis of the infant’s first relationships. According to Ainsworth(1989), these patterns can be extrapolated to individual differencesthroughout adult life. Hazan and Shaver (1994) provide empiricalevidence that the same attachment style that is developed in infancycharacterizes the individual throughout life.
In the last decade, a great deal of research on the interpersonal andintrapsychic correlates of these adult attachment styles has confirmedthe fundamental predictions of attachment theory (Bartholomew,1997; Simpson & Rholes, 1998). The following paragraphs presentthe major findings.
Persons with a secure attachment style generally had caretakerswho met their needs with sensitivity and consistency (Ainsworth,1978; Levy, Blatt, & Shaver, 1998). With a ‘‘secure base’’ establishedin infancy, they are able to balance intimacy and autonomy, separate-ness and connectedness (Belsky & Cassidy, 1994; Collins & Read,1990; Feeney, 1996; Simpson, 1990). They perceive themselves aslikable and lovable and do not require much external validation (Si-mon & Baxter, 1993). They trust others and are able to share theirfeelings and ask for help (Collins & Read, 1990; Feeney & Noller,1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1994; Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1995). Theircommunication skills tend to be good (Kobak & Hazan, 1991; Sen-chak & Leonard, 1992). They are able to integrate contradictory emo-tions, regulate negative emotions, solve conflicts cooperatively andconstructively (Pistole, 1989; Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Kobak & Ha-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY4
zan, 1991), and employ more constructive coping strategies in crises(Birnbaum et al., 1997).
Persons with an anxious/ambivalent attachment style generally hadinconsistent care in their infancy, with their caretakers at times re-sponding with warmth and sensitivity and at other times ignoring orneglecting them (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Levy, Blatt, & Shaver,1998). They tend to exaggerate the importance of proximity, intimacy,involvement, and connectedness almost to the point of interpersonalfusion. They tend to suffer from anxiety and self doubt, and to beobsessive or preoccupied with emotional security in relationships(Belsky & Cassidy, 1994; Chapman, 1991; Hazan & Shaver, 1994;Jones & Cunningham, 1996). They feel threatened by separatenessand autonomy, and deeply fear abandonment (Belsky & Cassidy, 1994;Collins & Read, 1990; Jones & Cunningham, 1996). In couple rela-tions, anxious/ambivalent people are demanding, dependent, clinging,and jealous, and often view the partner as reluctant to commit (Bren-nan & Shaver, 1993; Hazan & Shaver, 1987, 1994; Sharpsteen &Kirkpatrick, 1997).
Persons with an avoidant attachment style are generally theproducts of prolonged rejection and hostility on the part of their care-taker (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Crittenden & Ainsworth, 1989; Levy,Blatt, & Shaver, 1998). They tend to lack empathy, to devalue theimportance of close relationships, and to be pessimistic about relation-ships lasting. Threatened by the relationship needs of others (Belsky &Cassidy, 1994; Shaver & Hazan, 1988), they are distant and avoidintimate relationships, and are prone to change partners and to engagein noncommittal sexual affairs. They are frightened by self-disclosure(Mikulincer & Nachson, 1991) and deny feelings of distress and inse-curity. While they need to perceive and present themselves as highlyself-reliant; they are extremely sensitive to rejection (Bartholomew,1990; Belsky & Cassidy, 1994, Chapman, 1991; Hazan & Shaver,1994; Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Pianta, Egeland & Adam, 1996) and,hence, often harbor considerable and easily triggered rage (Rusbult etal., 1991; Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997).
DIVORCE AND ATTACHMENT
In the late 1980’s, Hazan and Shaver (1987, 1994) began to applyattachment theory to romantic relationships, arguing that romantic
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
Finzi, Cohen, and Ram 5
love is fundamentally an attachment process through which affectionalbonds are formed. Subsequently, empirical evidence has shown thatalthough many factors go into the choice of a love partner, attachmentstyle plays an important role (Bartholomew, 1997; Collins & Read,1990). It has been shown that in many cases partners are chosen orretained for their tendency to confirm attachment representations(Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994), even if those representations are nega-tive (Swann, Hixon & De La Ronde, 1992).
In the 1990’s, several studies looked more specifically at the associ-ation between attachment style and behavior during and after divorce.In a theoretical paper Todorski (1995) linked each of Ahrons andRodger’s (1987) types of post divorce parental communication (per-fect pals, cooperative colleagues, angry associates, fiery foes, anddissolved duos) with Main and Solomon’s (1990) four adult attach-ment patterns (autonomous/secure, preoccupied/anxious-ambivalent,dismissing/avoidant, and disorganized-unresolved). Recently, Birn-baum et al. (1997) conducted an empirical study examining the linksbetween attachment style and the mental health of divorcing persons.They found that attachment style moderated persons’ affective reac-tions to their divorce and was significantly related to their appraisaland coping with the crisis, which in turn mediated the associationbetween divorce and mental health.
This paper goes a step further. While acknowledging that the indi-vidual’s attachment style affects his or her particular divorce experi-ence, it maintains that the interaction of the attachment styles of theseparating spouses goes a long way to shaping the divorce dynamic inwhich they are both involved. This perspective is based on the under-standing that the individual’s attachment style is not a rigidly deter-ministic characteristic which operates in the same manner whateverthe circumstances but rather that it contains a set of potentials whichare differently expressed in different interactions.
The remainder of the paper discusses the divorce dynamics of thecouples of each attachment style and offers general directions forintervention. Intervention with the divorcing couples is discussed di-rectly after each combination is presented. Intervention with the chil-dren is discussed separately because of the importance of the issue andalso to avoid repetition.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY6
ATTACHMENT STYLES AND THE DYNAMICS OF DIVORCE
The following typology attempts to account for at least part of theconduct of the divorce by the attachment styles of the spouses. Fol-lowing Ainsworth’s (1978) taxonomy, it presents six types of coupleswith different combinations of secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambiva-lent attachment styles, and draws a picture of the dynamics of eachthat are likely to develop in the divorce process.
For the various divorce dynamics, we adopted elements of threeextant typologies: Parkinson’s (1987) seven category typology of cou-ples in conflict; Weingarten and Leas’ (1987) five category typology(which closely resembles it), and Cohen et al.’s (1999) typology whichadopts elements of both of these. Here, the relevant elements of thethree typologies are combined and modified with observations fromour own clinical experience. Our aim is to shed light on the role ofattachment style in creating the familiar dynamics of divorcing cou-ples. The overlap in the dynamics we describe and those in the othertypologies reinforces our claim that attachment style can account forthe different dynamics of divorce among different couples.
Secure-Secure Partners-Semi Separated Couple
Secure-secure couples have relatively low divorce rates (Hill,Young & Nord, 1994; Senchak & Leonard, 1992; Simon & Baxter,1993). Yet, they are able to end unsatisfying relationships with littleconflicts (Bartholomew, 1997). Secure persons are more likely tochoose partners who share similar beliefs about closeness and depend-ability (Collins & Read, 1990), to find themselves in close relation-ships founded on reciprocal and continuing self-disclosure (Belsky &Cassidy, 1994; Mikulincer & Nachson, 1991), and to accept and sup-port their partner despite the partner’s faults (Feeney & Noller, 1996).
The divorces of secure-secure couples are similar to those of Par-kinson’s (1987) semi-detached couples who separate with little overtconflict. Both partners are reconciled to the decision to divorce andcan proceed without recrimination, even if only one of them hadinitiated the separation. With a good sense of their own and the other’sautonomy, they begin to relate to both themselves and their spouse asindividuals in the process of re-building their lives. Their strong ‘‘se-cure base’’ and their appraisal of their coping abilities as adequate tothe challenge enable them to face the pain of the separation and the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
Finzi, Cohen, and Ram 7
prospects of their future apart, and possibly alone, without feelingunduly threatened (Belsky & Cassidy, 1994; Birnbaum et al., 1997) orengaging in defensive behaviors that complicate the process. Able tofocus on rational rather than emotional considerations (Birnbaum etal., 1997), they are able to communicate about the divorce in anundistorted manner and speak about concrete matters in the expecta-tion that the problems at hand can be solved.
Both spouses understand the need for re-organization, particularlyin relation to child care. Thanks to their personal capabilities and theirproblem solving skills (Kobak & Hazan, 1991; Pistole, 1989), they areable to further plan their own lives, and those of their children, with asfull a view as possible of the different needs of all the family members(Serovich, Price, Chapman & Wright, 1992).
Although secure people tend to look for treatment when in distressand to profit from it (Dolan, Arnkoff, & Glass, 1993; Biringen, 1994),they are able to manage the divorce crisis without introspective-ori-ented therapy. In the event that they do seek professional help, theytend to be concerned with obtaining information and counseling onhow to minimize the damage to their children and reach fair post-di-vorce parenting and financial arrangements. Intervention should focuson supportive processing toward normative adjustment (Holmes,1993).
The background for divorce among secure and avoidant spouses islikely to be the inability of the avoidant partner, who is characterizedby aloof independence, to meet the expectations of the secure partnerfor closeness, mutuality and intimacy (Mikulincer & Erev, 1991). Thedivorce is likely to be initiated by the avoidant partner in order to avertbeing rejected when he/she senses that the secure spouse is dissatis-fied. Pessimistic about relationships in general and the possibility ofrehabilitating problematic relationships (Latty-Mann & Davis, 1996;Simon & Baxter, 1993), they are likely to respond with their habitualresponse of flight. Initially, the secure partner, who is more optimisticabout relationships and the possibilities of keeping them alive, maysuggest couple therapy (Florian, Mikulincer & Bucholtz, 1995) orother means of resolving the conflict. But being realistic (Belsky &
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY8
Cassidy, 1994), they will realize when the marriage is beyond repairand consent to divorce without great ado.
The divorce of secure-avoidant couples will resemble those of Par-kinson’s (1987) couples who avoid overt conflict and retreat emotion-ally and/or physically. Physical and emotional aloofness and a mini-mum of conflict and overt emotional upheaval will characterize it. Thesecure partner will quickly accept the break-up and turn inward tobegin rebuilding his/her life. The avoidant partner is likely to deny thepain and to minimize the importance of the spouse to his or herwell-being. In many cases he or she will stop speaking with the spouseor move out of their shared bedroom or home. He or she will probablytry to conclude the process as quickly as possible in order to re-estab-lish internal balances (Latty-Mann & Davis, 1996; Scharfe & Bartho-lomew, 1995; Simon & Baxter, 1993).
Each partner will probably function as an individual parent, withoutconsulting the other. Avoidant spouses may busy themselves at work,not show up for their children’s birthday parties and other specialevents, and generally try to evade their parental responsibilities. Theirsecure spouses, more aware of that children still need two parents afterdivorce, will probably try to induce them to meet their commitments.Their communication, or whatever there is of it, is likely to be general,vague, and self-protective (Cohen et al., in press; Weingarten & Leas,1987). While secure spouses will be able to communicate and planahead with regard to the childcare despite their pain, their avoidantspouses will probably try to cut conversation short.
Secure-avoidant couples are unlikely to seek couple therapy, sincethe avoidant partner will probably reject any suggestions that thesecure partner may make that they do so. As Dolan et al. (1993) note,persons with avoidant attachment style tend to cling to their self-re-liance, deny distress and rarely look for treatment.
If they reach divorce counseling, however, the professional’s job isto enable them to reach a well defined agreement by focusing onfinancial and parenting arrangements. Also, the counselor may makethe avoidant parent aware of the importance of the children’s continu-ing relationship with both parents. Efforts should be made to concludethe agreement quickly before the avoidant partner loses patience andleaves (Latty-Mann & Davis, 1996). It is advisable to anchor anyagreement in law as soon as possible.
The secure partner might be encouraged to seek individual counsel-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
Finzi, Cohen, and Ram 9
ing to facilitate the emotional processing of the separation (Simon &Baxter, 1993).
In the partnership between secure and anxious/ambivalent individu-als, the secure partner generally provides care (Feeney, 1996), whilethe anxious/ambivalent partner seeks care. The complementary func-tions become problematic as the clinging dependence of the anxious/ambivalent spouse and his or her difficulties in permitting autonomy(Fitzpatrick, Fey, Sergin & Schiff, 1993) eventually provoke feelingsof strangulation and resentment in the secure partner (Jones & Cun-ningham, 1996).
The divorce of such couples has many features of the ‘‘push-pull’’couples described by Parkinson (1987). The secure partner, who is notthreatened by separation, will struggle to get out, while the anxious/ambivalent partner, who appraises divorce as a threat (Birnbaum et al.,1997), clings to remain in. Feeling abandoned, overwhelmed and un-able to deal with the separation, the anxious/ambivalent partner (Birn-baum et al., 1997) will try their utmost to prevent the divorce, whetherby making compromises he/she had previously rejected, agreeing tocounseling, or resorting to legal action, even if holding on means afurther deterioration of the relationship.
Their communication is lopsided. The insecure spouse initiatescommunication on every subject and by every possible means. Thesecure spouse, pushed to feel and act avoidant (Feeney & Noller,1996), will try to avert any contact that might be interpreted as hesita-tion or a change of mind.
Moreover, while both spouses may be aware of the need to talkabout the children, only the secure spouse is able to make the emotion-al and cognitive distinction between the spousal and the parental role.The secure spouse is thus likely to continue acting as a parent in thesame way as previously or with a clear view to future arrangements,for example by spending weekends alone with the children. The anx-ious/ambivalent spouse may use the children as a way of clinging, forexample by summoning the spouse every time the smallest thing isamiss, under the pretext that ‘‘it’s for the kids.’’ Such partners havedifficulty discerning their children’s distress in the divorce and mayalso project their own feelings of abandonment and separation anxi-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY10
eties on their children. They may well say things like: ‘‘Your father/mother left us’’ or ‘‘He/she doesn’t love us any more.’’
Both partners may feel frustrated because their repeated attempts toclarify their positions are futile. One or both of them may seek inter-vention by an independent party (Cohen et al., 1999). Anxious/ambiv-alent spouses may suggest counseling as a way of changing the securepartner’s mind (Birnbaum et al., 1997).
Secure-anxious/ambivalent partners may reach couple therapy. Theanxious/ambivalent partner may see such therapy as a way of winningthe secure spouse back. The secure partner is likely to expect thetherapist to help convey the message that the marriage is over. Thecounselor’s job is to help the anxious/ambivalent partner to accept thedivorce, which conveying understanding of the anxieties it arousesand referring him or her to individual therapy to help cope with thesense of emptiness, helplessness, and severe anxiety that the impend-ing divorce provokes in him or her.
In individual therapy, anxious/ambivalent individuals should be en-couraged to identify and mobilize the inner strengths that they haveand to find an anchor within themselves that makes them feel able andworthwhile. Once these individuals understand that divorce is inevita-ble, the therapist should help them reorganize for the future. Thismeans helping them to stand on their own without feeling that theymust rush headlong into an unsuitable relationship just to fill the void(Belsky & Cassidy, 1994). It also means helping them to reduce theirintense preoccupation with themselves and to recognize their chil-dren’s distress and differentiate it from their own. Throughout theprocess, therapists should be aware that anxious/ambivalent clients inthe throes of separation may try to cling to them (Dozier, Cue & Barnett,1994) and to blur the boundaries of their relationship (Belsky & Cassidy,1994), and be prepared to be accessible and supportive while applyingclear boundaries.
Anxious/Ambivalent-Avoidant: Power Struggle
Avoidant persons may select an anxious/ambivalent partner becausethe latter’s dependence justifies their avoidance (Senchak & Leonard,1992) or to confirm their view of others as uncaring and rejecting(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Anxious/ambivalent persons maylook for confirmation of their fear of abandonment and be attracted to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
Finzi, Cohen, and Ram 11
avoidant partners who are bound to abandon them (Belsky & Cassidy,1994).
Yet within the marriage the anxious/ambivalent partner is likely tofeel perpetually disappointed with the avoidant partner’s aloofness(Pistole, 1994; Senchak & Leonard, 1992; Simon & Baxter, 1993),while the avoidant partner is likely to feel exacerbated by the anxious/ambivalent partner’s clinging and to distance even further.
Threatened by separation from a secure partner, anxious/ambivalentindividuals, as noted above, are likely to use all sorts of ruses andmaneuvers to hold on, while avoidant partners are likely to withdraw.The divorce process of such couples may evoke rage in both partners.In the anxious/ambivalent partner the rage is driven by the intensifiedfear of abandonment and sense of helplessness (Roberts & Noller,1998). In the avoidant partner, the driving force is more likely to bethe distress caused by the collapse of the facade of indifference andcontrol (Birnbaum et al., 1997).
In the divorce process, such couples are likely to be caught up in apower struggle, as each partner strives to regain their lost sense ofcontrol. These couples share many of the features of Parkinson’s(1987) power struggling couples and Weingarten and Leas’ (1987)‘‘fight and flight’’ couples, who are willing to hurt each other. Theircommunication is likely to be ridden with personal attacks. Althoughthey declare their desire to communicate, they fear the other spousewill interpret the desire as a sign of weakness and submission. Suspi-cious of the other’s motives both the anxious/ambivalent and avoidantpartners may resort to strategic manipulation and tactical battles char-acterized by militant positions.
Both spouses are likely to involve the children in their struggle forthe upper hand. For example, each may make plans for the childrenwithout informing the other. An anxious/ambivalent mother, for exam-ple, may make arrangements for the children on their father’s visitingday, then complain that he never sees them. An avoidant father mayshow up without prior notice, then feel rejected that the children wereotherwise occupied or not at home, and stop visiting for a while.
Their lack of problem solving competence (Pistole, 1989) may leadthe anxious/ambivalent spouse to bring the battle to the courts and theavoidant spouse to cooperate superficially while taking up a defensiveposition (Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1995). The result may be a ‘‘di-vorce dance’’ in which the anxious/ambivalent partner declares ‘‘even
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY12
if he begs I don’t want him anymore’’, and the avoidant partner pro-claims ‘‘I don’t need her or her children.’’
These couples may reach family therapy at the instigation of theanxious/ambivalent spouse. The avoidant partner, who generally bothlacks and fears insight, is likely to cooperate only superficially andthen run (Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1995). The task of the counselorhere should be to help the couple to reach concrete, clear and non-am-biguous agreements, paying special attention to the needs of the chil-dren. It may be useful to bolster the avoidant partner’s feelings ofcontrol in procedural matters (which do not affect the agreement itselfor impinge on the other spouse’s rights), while offering the anxious/ambivalent partner emotional support and empathy (Dolan et al.,1993; Dozier et al., 1994).
In the event that the anxious/ambivalent partner seeks therapy todeal with the distress of the divorce, the same guidelines as statedabove are applicable in this instance.
Although marriages between two anxious/ambivalent individualsare reportedly rare (Belsky & Cassidy, 1994; Kirkpatrick & Davis1994), we have encountered no small number of such couples in ourclinical work. Such individuals are likely to have married in theirmutual search for a kinder spirit--one who longs, as they do, for perfectcloseness and total responsiveness. Their marital lives tend to enmesh-ment. Lacking firm self-boundaries, they seek mergence and see thepartner as an extension of themselves rather than as a separate person(Belsky & Cassidy, 1994). As their unrealistic expectations are disap-pointed, the anxious/ambivalent husband and wife inevitably becomedisillusioned with one another. In many cases, the disillusionment isaccompanied by the seeking of another partner to meet their needs forproximity (Belsky & Cassidy, 1994). Whether it is or not, it is at thispoint that they may begin to talk about divorce.
The threat of divorce triggers in anxious/ambivalent individuals acomplex of intense fears. The most obvious are perhaps their earlyfears of abandonment. Moreover, the inadequacy of their ego bound-aries means that they are likely to experience divorce as a threat totheir sense of self (Birnbaum et al., 1997).
The spouses in an anxious/ambivalent couple are also likely to fear
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
Finzi, Cohen, and Ram 13
never again finding a kindred spirit. As a client put it: ‘‘I knew that I’llnever find a more suitable partner, who can understand and accept mycraziness, and I’ll probably end up all by myself.’’
In their divorce, anxious/ambivalent couples share many of thefeatures of Parkinson’s (1987) enmeshed couples. The scope and in-tensity of the anxieties that divorce evokes in them tends to over-whelm their capacities for logical judgment. The efforts of one of thepartners to extricate from the enmeshment are thus likely to evoke agreat deal of anger and retaliatory violence from the other (Dutton etal., 1994). The violence is sometimes rationalized by the existence of agirlfriend or boyfriend, but its underlying cause is the inability to seethe other person as a separate individual and to allow him or her toleave and its underlying motive is, paradoxically, to bring the strayingpartner back to the marriage.
Their communication tends to be characterized by mutual accusa-tions and projections, as each partner denies his/her personal difficul-ties and refuses to take personal responsibility for the deterioration ofthe marriage or the escalating conflict of the divorce process.
Moreover, as a result of their fears, both partners will probablysabotage the divorce process, even as they declare that they can nolonger live together; for they cannot separate either. Many such cou-ples can be said to be ‘chronically divorcing.’ That is, they will so dragout the process as to never make a complete break. All means are fair(Cohen et al., in press).
The children usually become means of holding on to the partnerwho, at any particular point, is more interested in reaching a divorcesettlement. Anxious/ambivalent parents will each try to rally the chil-dren to their side or use children for their own needs.
Where the laws permit, such couples are also likely to use the courtsto hold on to one another. For example, when a legal decision is madeto the apparent favor of one of the spouses, the other will appeal tohigher court; if the decision is reversed, the partner who lost will awaitthe ‘‘right moment’’ to resume the legal struggle. Moreover, sincesuch couples have a strong emotional stake in keeping their fightgoing (Parkinson, 1987), the conflict is likely to flare up again afterdivorce. Alimony, child support, custody, and visiting rights providepretexts for keeping the fight going.
Anxious/ambivalent couples are very likely to seek couple therapy.Their motives, however, are not usually to deal with their emotions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY14
and better manage their conduct, but to seek allies in their fight. Intheir search for an ideal therapist-ally, who will ‘‘understand’’ and sidewith them, they will tend run through one counselor after another.Efforts to intervene at the couple level are likely to fail. In extremecases, the only course that remains is for the courts to intervene todetermine parental competency and decide on custody and visitationwhen the couple turns to them in their battle, whether during or aftertheir divorce.
Avoidant-Avoidant Couples: War
Avoidant spouses are both likely to have chosen one another inorder to keep intimacy at bay (Senchak & Leonard, 1992). Theirmarriages tend to be distant and aloof, allowing each partner to enjoy asense of control over the level of proximity. This may work to theirmutual satisfaction until something happens that causes one of them tofeel irreparably hurt. The trigger can be anything from perceivedrejection or uncaring through verbal abuse or physical violence. What-ever it is, the offense is deep and perceived as unforgivable. Once theinjured spouse indicates that he or she wants to end the marriage, theother spouse feels similarly injured. Neither spouse is ready to investthe effort required to rebuild the relationship (Latty-Mann & Davis,1996). Divorce promises to free them to find another, presumablymore satisfying, partner.
The divorces of avoidant-avoidant couples partake of the dynamicsof Parkinson’s (1987) couples with a history of family violence, aswell as of the couples at ‘‘war’’ described by Weingarten and Leas(1987). Their mutual hurt begins a cycle of retaliation and further hurt,which is fed too by the sense of helplessness, loss of the facade ofcontrol (Birnbaum et al., 1997), and feelings of rejection, even on thepart of the partner who initiated the divorce (Scharfe & Bartholomew,1995).
In contrast to the possible violence of anxious/ambivalent couples,their violence is aimed not at bringing back their straying partner, butrather at repairing their lost self-esteem. Their lack of empathy mayresult in more planned and intentionally malicious violence than theimpulsive violence of anxious/ambivalent couples. An example is anavoidant man who before leaving his home, broke all the dishes be-cause, ‘‘If I don’t have any, she won’t either.’’ We also encountered an
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
Finzi, Cohen, and Ram 15
avoidant woman who vandalized the family car that her husband re-ceived in the court imposed divorce settlement out of the same motive.
Of all the three attachment styles, the avoidant is characterized bythe most rigid internal working models (Bretherton, Ridgeway & Cas-sidy, 1990). The result is a narrow response repertoire and poor con-flict solving skills (Kobak & Hazan, 1991; Pistole, 1989). The com-munication of avoidant divorcing couples, if there is any, is thusquarrelsome and accusatory and quickly spirals out of control, whichmay also feed their violence (Parkinson, 1987).
The couple’s children are at high risk for becoming pawns in theirall-out battle. Custody fights are likely, not because the parents bothwant the children, but in order to deprive the other parent of them. Inextreme cases, these are the couples where one of the parents maykidnap the children or one or both may bring unfounded chargesagainst the other of physically or sexually abusing the children.
Recommending therapeutic intervention on either the couple orindividual level is pointless. It will probably be rejected; and even if itis not, positive results will take too long to attain to be of help to thechildren who are at risk. To help the children, the social welfaresystem would do well to initiate rapid legal intervention, especially inthe event of false allegations of maltreatment of the children. Therapyis recommended to help the children deal with the trauma.
INTERVENTION WITH THE CHILDREN
Intervention with children whose parents have one of the first threeattachment patterns can be effected by providing guidance for theparents. The secure parent in these couples is sensitive to the needs ofthe children and emotionally able to ask for and implement assistance.He or she can thus be guided in helping his/her children get throughthe difficult period of the divorce. If the insecure parent is avoidant,the secure parent can be guided to explain to the children that his/herrejection is not because of anything that they did but because of his orher personal difficulties. If the insecure parent is anxious/ambivalent,the secure parent can be guided to facilitate the separation process. Tohelp the children grasp and accept the reality of the divorce, the secureparent can be cautioned to avoid the maneuvers that the anxious/am-bivalent parent is likely to undertake in order to perpetuate to thespousal relationship. In addition, the secure parent can also be guided
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY16
to help the children identify and assert their own needs in face of thedemands for support that the clinging parent is likely to make. To besure, the input of the secure parent will be greater if he or she is thecustodial parent. However, even as the non-custodial parent, he or shemay be able to help the children cope with the divorce crisis andaftermath.
Intervention with children whose parents show one of the last threeattachment combinations must be direct, since it is unlikely that aparent with an insecure attachment style will be able to contain andbuffer the intensity of the conflict that the divorce provokes in them.Direct professional assistance is thus recommended. In all cases, thechildren must be helped to deal with their conflicts of loyalty. If one orboth parents is anxious/ambivalent, they must also be helped to relin-quish the fantasies of reunion that that parent encourages and to ridthemselves of the guilt feelings that stem from the demands made onthem to play a supportive, parental role. If one or both of their parentsis avoidant, they must be helped to cope with his/her distance and chilland to understand that these behaviors derive from the parent’s self-absorption and are not a rejection. In the event that the children areexposed to family violence, psychotherapy is recommended to helpthem work through its repercussions and to develop normally.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The six types of divorcing couples represented in the above typolo-gy are, of course, general models. Given the complexity of humannature and the divorce conflict, few if any couples will fit entirely or inevery respect into a single category. Ainsworth’s (1978) three attach-ment styles are themselves rough guides. The same individual mayhave elements of more than one attachment style. People of the sameattachment style may also differ in just how secure, anxious/ambiva-lent or avoidant they are. The typology here does not capture thesepermutations. Moreover, factors other than attachment style, includingother personality factors, probably also affect the dynamic.
Nonetheless, the typology provides a preliminary formulation ofhow couples’ underlying attachment patterns may help to shape theway they go about their divorces. Understanding what drives couples’divorce behavior should be useful for both therapeutic and legalagents who are called upon to intervene in the process. In addition, our
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
Finzi, Cohen, and Ram 17
formulations should stimulate consideration of other personality fac-tors involved in the divorce dynamic. What is called for now, in ourview, is empirical study of the variety of divorce dynamics aimed atexamining the theoretical propositions offered above.
REFERENCES
Ahrons, C.R., & Rodgers, R.H. (1987). Divorced families. New York: Norton.Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attach-
ment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Ainsworth, M.S.D. (1989). Attachment beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44,
709-716.Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147-178.Bartholomew, K. (1997). Adult attachment processes: Individual and couple perspec-
tives. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 70, 249-263.Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults:
A test of four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,226-244.
Belsky, J., & Cassidy, J. (1994). Attachment and close relationships: An individual-difference perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 27-30.
Berman, W.H. (1985). Continued attachment after legal Divorce. Journal of FamilyIssues, 6, 375-392.
Berman, W.H. (1988). The role of attachment in the post-divorce experience. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 496-503.
Berman, W.H. (1988-a). The relationship of ex-spouse attachment to adjustmentfollowing Divorce. Journal of Family Psychology, 1, 312-328.
Biringen, Z. (1994). Attachment theory and research: Application to clinical practice.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64, 404-420.
Birnbaum, G.E., Orr, I., Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1997). When marriage breaksup--Does attachment styles contribute to coping and mental health? Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 14, 643-654.
Booth, A., & Amato, P. (1992). Divorce, residential change, and stress. Journal ofDivorce and Remarriage, 18, 205-213.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation, anxiety and anger. London:
Hogarth Press.Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 130, 201-210.Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Loss, sadness and depression. London:
Hogarth Press.Bowlby, J. (1988). Developmental psychiatry comes to age. American Journal of
Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D., & Cassidy, J. (1990). Assessing internal workingmodels of the attachment relationship (pp. 273-308). In M.T. Greenberg, D. Cic-chetti & E.M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.
Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L.J. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of attachment:Theory and research. Child Development, 65, 971-991.
Chapman, S.F. (1991). Attachment and adolescent adjustment to parental remarriage.Family Relations, 40, 232-237.
Cohen, O. (1995). Divorced fathers raising their children alone. Journal of Divorceand Remarriage, 23, 55-75.
Cohen, O., Luxenburg, A., Dattner, N., & Matz, E.D. Suitability of divorcing couplesfor mediation: A suggested typology. The American Journal of Family Therapy,27, 329-344.
Collins, N.L., & Read, S.J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relation-ship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,644-663.
Crittenden, P.M., & Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1989). Child maltreatment and attachmenttheory. In C. Cicchetti, & V. Carlson (Eds.), Handbook of child maltreatment(pp. 432-463). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diedrich, P. (1991). Gender differences in divorce adjustment. Journal of Divorceand Remarriage, 14, 33-43.
Dozier, M., Cue, K.L., & Barnett, L. (1994). Clinicians as caregivers: Role of attach-ment organization in treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,62, 793-800.
Dutton, D.G, Saunders, K., Starzomski, A., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Intimacy-an-ger and insecure attachment as precursors of abuse in intimate relationships.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1367-1386.
Emery, R. E. (1994). Renegotiating family relationships: Divorce, child custody andmediation. New York: The Guilford Press.
Feeney, J.A. (1996). Attachment, caregiving and marital satisfaction. Personal Rela-tionships, 3, 401-416.
Feeney, J.A. & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as predictor of adult romanticrelationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281-291.
Feeney, J.A. & Noller, P. (1996). Adult attachment. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Fitzpatrick, M.A., Fey, J., Segrin, C., & Schiff, J.L. (1993). Internal working models
of relationships and marital communication. Journal of Language and SocialPsychology, 12, 103-131.
Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Bucholtz, I. (1995). Effects of adult attachment styleon the perception and search for social support. Journal of Psychology, 129,665-676.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachmentprocess. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework forresearch on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
Finzi, Cohen, and Ram 19
Hill, E.M., Young, J.P., & Nord, J.L. (1994). Childhood adversity, attachment securi-ty, and adult relationships: A preliminary study. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15,323-338.
Holmes, J. (1993). Attachment theory: A biological basis for psychotherapy? BritishJournal of Psychiatry, 163, 430-438.
Jones, J.T., & Cunningham, J.D. (1996). Attachment styles and other predictors ofrelationship satisfaction in dating couples. Personal Relationships, 3, 387-399.
Kaslow, F.W., & Schwartz, L.L. (1987). The dynamics of divorce--A life cycle per-spective. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Kirkpatrick, L.A., & Davis, K.E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationshipstability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,66, 502-512.
Kitson, G.C., & Morgan, L.A. (1990). The multiple consequence of divorce: Adecade review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 913-924.
Kobak, R.R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models,affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59,135-146.
Kobak, R.R., & Hazan, C. (1991). Attachment in marriage: Effects of security andaccuracy of working models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,861-869.
Latty-Mann, H. & Davis, K.E. (1996). Attachment theory and partner choice: Prefer-ence and actuality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 5-23.
Levy, K.N., Blatt, S.J., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Attachment styles and parental repre-sentations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 407-419.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorga-nized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M.T. Green-berg, D, Cicchetti, & E.M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschoolyears (pp. 121-160). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Erev, I. (1991). Attachment style and the structure of romanticlove. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 273-291.
Mikulincer, M., & Nachson, O. (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self-disclo-sure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 321-331.
Parkinson, L. (1987). Separation, divorce and families. London: MacMillan Educa-tion.
Pianta, R.C., Egeland, B., & Adam, E.K. (1996). Adult attachment classification andself report psychiatric symptomatology as assessed by the Minnesota MultiphasePersonality. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 273-281.
Pistole, C.M. (1989). Attachment in adult romantic relationships: Style of conflictresolution and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-ships, 6, 505-510.
Pistole, C.M. (1994). Adult attachment styles: Some thoughts on closeness-distancestruggles. Family Process, 33, 147-159.
Pledge, D.S. (1992). Marital separation/divorce: A review of individual responses toa major life stressor. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 17, 151-181.
Roberts, N. & Noller, P. (1998). The association between adult attachment andcouple violence: The role of communication patterns and relationships satisfac-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Bar
-Ila
n U
nive
rsity
] at
08:
46 0
4 M
arch
201
6
JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY20
tion. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relation-ships (pp. 317-350). New York: Guilford.
Rusbult, C.E., Verette, J., Whitney, G.A. Solvik, L.F. & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accom-modation process in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evi-dence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53-78.
Scharfe, E. & Bartholomew, K. (1995). Accommodation and Attachment representa-tions in young couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12,389-401.
Senchak, M. & Leonard, K.E. (1992). Attachment styles and marital adjustmentamong newlywed couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9,51-64.
Serovich, J.M., Price, S.J., Chapman, S.F. & Wright, D.W. (1992). Attachment be-tween former spouses: Impact on co-parental communication and parental in-volvement. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 17, 109-119.
Sharpsteen, D.J., & Kirkpatrick, L.A. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult romanticattachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 627-640.
Shaver, P.R., & Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of love. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 5, 473-501.
Simon, E.P. & Baxter, L.A. (1993). Attachment style differences in relationshipmaintenance strategies. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 416-430.
Simpson, J.A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971-980.
Simpson, J.A., & Rholes, W.S. (1998). Attachment in adulthood. In J.A. Simpson &W.S Rholes (Eds.) Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 3-21). NewYork: Guilford.
Swann, W.B., Hixon, J.G. & De La Ronde, C. (1992). Embracing the bitter ‘‘truth’’:Negative self-concepts and marital commitment. Psychological Science, 3,118-122.
Todorski, J. (1995). Attachment and divorce: A therapeutic view. Journal of Divorceand Remarriage, 22, 189-198.
Weingarten, H., & Leas, S. (1987). Levels of marital conflict model: A guide toassessment and intervention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58, 407-417.
