who pulls the trigger?

This article was downloaded by: [University Of Pittsburgh]On: 13 November 2014, At: 20:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

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

Who Pulls the Trigger?Rachel Rokach MA a , Orna Cohen PhD b & SollyDreman PhD aa Department of Behavioral Sciences , Ben GurionUniversity of the Negev , PO Box 653, Beer Sheva,84105, Israelb Bob Shapell School of Social Work, Tel AvivUniversity , Tel Aviv, 69978, IsraelPublished online: 04 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Rachel Rokach MA , Orna Cohen PhD & Solly Dreman PhD (2004)Who Pulls the Trigger?, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 42:1-2, 61-83, DOI: 10.1300/J087v42n01_03

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J087v42n01_03

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J087v42n01_03

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J087v42n01_03

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J087v42n01_03

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

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

Who Pulls the Trigger?Who Initiates Divorce Among

Over 45-Year-Olds

Rachel RokachOrna Cohen

Solly Dreman

ABSTRACT. The narratives of six Israeli men and nine Israeli womenwho divorced at ages above 45 were analyzed by qualitative methods toexplore the process of divorce initiation in this age group, in first mar-riages of fifteen years and more. Ten factors associated with the status of“initiator” emerged: gender; the presence of an alternative relationship;pressing for change in the marriage; outside support; economic consid-erations; health; emotional or physical abuse; “absent partners”; self-es-teem and status in the relationship; and dominance. The evidence doesnot support a definitive profile of a divorce initiator. The narratives dem-onstrate that deciding to divorce in later life is a shared process, withcontributions by both sides, rather than one individual’s initiative. [Ar-ticle copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]>Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc.All rights reserved.]

Rachel Rokach, MA, is a doctoral student, and Solly Dreman, PhD, is on the faculty,Department of Behavioral Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, PO Box 653,Beer Sheva 84105, Israel. Orna Cohen, PhD, is on the faculty, Bob Shapell School of So-cial Work, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel.

Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, Vol. 42(1/2) 2004http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JDR

© 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J087v42n01_03 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

KEYWORDS. Divorce process, initiator of divorce, self esteem and di-vorce, decision to divorce, divorce for women and men

INTRODUCTION

The nest is emptying in more ways than one nowadays. The inci-dence of divorce in older cohorts is on the rise, in the U.S. (Uhlenberg,Cooney, & Boyd, 1990) and in Israel, where in 1996 over-45ers madeup 20% of divorcing women and 30% of divorcing men (Central Bu-reau of Statistics, 1998). They dissolved marriages that had lasted fif-teen years or more and often seemed stable and viable for much of thattime. As more and more middle-agers and their children experiencemarital dissolution and its consequences, older divorce is beginning tobe recognized as a distinct phenomenon worthy of study. Much re-search on this age group has focussed on women subjects (e.g., Kistner,1994; McLain, 1997), since they tend to be more available to interview-ers, and perhaps out of some assumption that their problems are greater.The present study aims to broaden the available research on later di-vorce.

There is broad agreement that approximately two thirds of divorcesat all ages are initiated by the wife (e.g., Braver, Whitley, & Ng, 1993;Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980), taking the “initiator” to be the party whosigned the petition for divorce proceedings. Given the importance ofcircular causation in marital dynamics (Bowen, 1985) and the long timelapse between beginning to consider the divorce and actually taking thelegal step (Goodman, 1993, cites a three-year mean; Hayes, Stinnet, &Defrain, 1980, cite “many years”), the assignment of the title “initiator”to one side seems rather simplistic. Meyers (1995) represents a more so-phisticated approach, describing a category of men (of all ages) havingadulterous relationships who for reasons of conscience do not initiate,yet who succeed in provoking their wives to do so; this is an intuitivelyconvincing example of the complexity of causation in this area.

Interestingly, many non-initiating men report “no forewarning” ofthe divorce and no understanding of what brought their wives to it(Goodman, 1993), in spite of the long time lapse during which theirwives were apparently weighing the step. Does this indicate that the twopartners can feel so differently about the marriage that while one sees itas viable, the other is contemplating dissolution? Dolan and Hoffman(1998) found that over-45s had even less fore-warning of divorce than

62 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

younger respondents. It seems that evident unhappiness in a marriage isnot enough to make people take the threat of divorce seriously.

Asking who it is that takes the formal step of divorce initiation, Petitand Bloom (1984) found that initiators did not report a higher level ofmarital distress than non-initiators when interviewed after divorce; in-deed, they found that male initiators showed fewer symptoms of maritaldistress than male non-initiators! They speculated that the taking of ini-tiative probably springs from a combination of distress, alternatives andattractions, and personality factors.

Assuming that marital deterioration is a process which extends overseveral years, to which both sides contribute and from which both sidessuffer, this article addresses itself to two broad questions: (a) Whatcharacterizes the partner who takes the formal initiative to divorce inlong-term marriages? (b) Is it more relevant to describe the initiative asa unilateral act, or as a joint process which is only vocalized by oneside? I have chosen to use the narrators’ designation of who took thefirst legal step toward the actual divorce as defining the “initiator.”

The narrative method of obtaining data and qualitative methods ofanalysis were chosen for their ability to capture the complexity, multi-plicity, and ambivalence of material relating to such a sensitive emo-tional experience; and to make manifest the circularity and mutuality ofprocesses within a marriage.

The material presented here is taken from a study of 15 Israeli menand women who divorced at age 45 and over, tracing their experiencefrom marital deterioration through decision-making and initiationthrough formal proceedings, the division of property and decisionsabout child custody and visitation, and aspects of adjustment to life afterdivorce. This will constitute a beginning in exploring two areas hithertoneglected in Israeli divorce research: the experience of older cohorts,and the dynamics of marital dissolution. The emphasis on family val-ues, the unusual degree of universal psychological stress due to militaryservice and the threat of terrorism, and the relative volatility of non-reli-gious Jewish Israeli society (Halpern, 2001) make this an interestingpopulation to study.

CONDUCT OF THE RESEARCH

The six men and nine women in the present study range in age from46 to 59 (mean age = 48) at the time of the interview. These marriages(their first) had lasted for between 15 and 30 years (mean length of mar-

Rokach, Cohen, and Dreman 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

riage = 23 years). They have been divorced for at least a year (four be-tween one and five years; five between six and ten years; five over tenyears). Five participants are Israeli-born; five were born and grew up inEurope, three in North America, two in South America. Two have par-tial university or technical training, four hold BA degrees, and six post-graduate degrees. Two have full high school education, one partial highschool. Thus they belong to the better-educated and more Westernizedpopulation of Israel.

Ten interviewees volunteered for the project when approachedthrough a support group in which they had participated at the Center forMediation in Jerusalem. Two responded to newspaper advertisements.The others were located through acquaintances. There was no remuner-ation. Each was contacted by phone by the researcher, and consented toa tape-recorded interview. The interviews took place in the narrator’shome, at their request, except for one who preferred to meet in his of-fice. All but one were interviewed by the same researcher (the first au-thor); one was interviewed by the second author. Each was asked to“relate the story of the divorce in your own way and words,” and al-lowed to respond freely. When the speaker finished, we asked about ar-eas of the divorce experience which hadn’t come up. The interviewslasted from one to 2 1/2 hours and were taped in full and transcribed infull by the interviewer.

The constant comparison method of content analysis (Strauss &Corbin, 1990) and analytic induction (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982) wereused to scan the material and generate codes and categories explicatingthe experiences and processes described in the interviews. This was fol-lowed by categorical-content analysis (Lieblich, Maschiach-Tuval, &Zilber, 1998) to delineate themes and perspectives within the narratives,and to organize the range of reactions within the categories. Where ap-propriate, global analysis and micro-analysis of selected parts of thetext (Rosenthal, 1993) were used to enrich the researcher’s understand-ing and interpretations.

Other readers from the field of behavioral science (psychology andsocial work) read and interpreted some of the transcripts, and their inter-pretations were used to question and enrich the reading of the narra-tives.

The material of the interviews includes the narrators’ reports aboutthemselves and their behavior, and about their ex-spouses and their be-havior. Where relevant the author noted which cases were self-reported,which other-reported (see “Ethical and Methodological Consider-ations” for discussion of the problematics involved).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

RESULTS

Ten factors emerged from the narratives as having significant bear-ing on the question of which partner initiates divorce. These are: gen-der; the presence of an alternative relationship; pressing for change inthe marriage; outside support; economic considerations; health; emo-tional or physical abuse; “absent partners”; self-esteem and status in therelationship; and dominance.

In order to help the reader form a more differentiated and integratedpicture of the narrators, I will identify each “speaker” by a pseudonymin the text, and their ex-spouses by an initial. All quotes and descriptionsare thus self-reports of the speaker named. (see Appendix for pseud-onyms, age, number of children, and status as initiator/non-initiator.)Couples are identified by the name of the narrator.

Gender

Yael and her husband divorced when their younger child turned 18,after 24 years of marriage, as they had planned “for years.” They filedfor the divorce jointly and divided the property equally. We may saytheir initiation was mutual. In contrast, the other fourteen narrativesdemonstrate to how great an extent ascribing the taking of initiative toone partner does an injustice to the intertwining contributions of bothsides. In the interest of conciseness, the author uses the term “initiator”to indicate the one who took the step to begin the legal divorce proceed-ing. In this literal sense, eight men (four self-reported, four reported byex-spouse) and six women (four self-reported, two reported by ex-spouse) in this group were the formal initiators of the legal divorce pro-cedure.

Presence of an Alternative Relationship

Eight narrators reported that one of the spouses (six husbands and twowives) had a significant adulterous relationship at the time of the divorce.(“Significant relationship” meaning a long-term sexual and emotional re-lationship, not occasional or serial adultery.) None reported that bothdid. This factor works very differently for men and for women. Of thetwo wives reported (both by ex-spouses) as having a significant extra-marital relationship, one initiated and one did not; the other four women(three self-reports, one reported by ex-spouse) who are designated initi-ators are reported not to have such a relationship, even when they were


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

aware of their husbands’ extramarital activity. Among the male initia-tors, six out of eight (two self-reported, four reported by ex-spouse) hada significant alternative relationship!

In two cases (James and Ellen) the husband stated his intention to di-vorce because of a preferred alternative relationship, yet it was the wifewho eventually insisted on the separation and initiated the legal pro-ceedings. As Ellen put it, “I kicked him out. He initiated. . . . He stayedin the house and commuted to his girlfriend’s. When I said this wasn’t agood idea he got mad at me. When I pushed him to move out he was fu-rious, and he started choking me financially. . . . Then I realized I had toget a divorce and a financial settlement.” Apparently this initiation waspreceded by a joint effort, with each pushing the other. Yet Ellen statesemphatically, “He initiated.”

James says, “It was never my intention to divorce, or to be unfaithful.At some point that came about. I found someone who made me feel dif-ferent, . . . appreciated. . . . When I revealed it to M., I wanted her to giveme the strength to break away. And she did help me. Either I was tooweak to use the help she gave, or she wasn’t able to . . . understand . . .M. had given me an ultimatum . . . I couldn’t handle the choice. I was inlove with both of them.” After three years and some counseling, hiswife made the final decision to divorce. In James’ and Ellen’s cases, itseems most accurate to speak of circular causation, where both spousescontribute to the spiral that leads to divorce in a marriage which has al-ready deteriorated; yet it was the wives who took the legal step of initia-tion.

Of the six other couples where an alternative partner is reported, fivespouses who had such relationships (four men and one woman) initi-ated. It is important to note that only one narrator represented here,Aharon, reports being the initiator and having an alternative relation-ship; the others are reported on by ex-spouses. Aharon emphasizes themarital problems far above the importance of this relationship for him.“When I understood that I had to take my eating into my own hands, Istarted wanting to take other things into my own hands too. The eco-nomic problems, our miserable financial state as I approach age 50, andI don’t know what will be. . . . I found out my wife had lied about thepayment for the trip and we were deeper in debt. . . . I realized that shewas leading me like a sheep, and I started to argue about every point. Idecided I couldn’t continue that way.”

Two non-initiators who report that their ex’s had an alternative rela-tionship recognize that their partner’s decision sprang from the prob-lems of the marriage and not primarily from the relationship. Ann,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

whose husband left openly for another woman said, “I knew he wasn’thappy. He’d tried to tell me several times, after I was ill, too. But I be-lieved he wasn’t the sort of man to break up a family. I didn’t allow my-self to see.” On the other hand, Sue, who reports that her husbandinitiated, said “The main thing for me was that he was involved withsomeone else. He didn’t admit it–he admitted loving her only as friend-ship. . . . He still doesn’t admit it, even though they’re still together. . . .He’d say he wanted out, or didn’t, he never decided. . . . Coincidence ornot, she got divorced three months later.”

Jane, Tom, and Adina say their spouses did not hide their new rela-tionships. Jane, who did not initiate despite nonsupport and extendedabsences throughout twenty years of marriage reports, “It turns out hehad met a woman over the Net and was very involved with her. . . . Mydaughter came back from a trip with her father . . . when he sent herhome alone, because later I found out he stopped in England to see thatwoman. She, my daughter was terribly upset. . . . I found the letter tell-ing T. (their daughter) ‘I’ve been unhappy so long, this is my onechance for happiness.’”

Tom and Adina are “sinned-against” spouses who took the initiativeto divorce–not necessarily because of the adultery. Tom reported, “Ifound out she was having an affair, but ‘Wise Tom’ decides this is not areason to get divorced. I won’t have my wife leave and take the kids.They’d be living in a pigsty.” Three years later, his wife was “. . . nearlyliving with her boyfriend. She’d come home, rest, shower, and go outfor the whole night. Even on the kids’ birthdays.” When she declaredher intention of getting a divorce, he was motivated to take the step first,believing this would help him get custody of the children (which hedid). He sees her alternative relationship as important mainly in con-junction with the wife’s flagrant neglect of the children. She declaredher wish for divorce but did not take the legal step; this seems to be acase of circular initiation, where she used behavior she assumed wouldprovoke him to take the step she was unable to take.

According to Adina, her husband’s adultery sprang from a familytragedy. Their daughter developed a degenerative disease, and for nineyears the mother devoted all her time and energy to caring for her, en-couraging her husband to go out in the evening. “Why should he sinkinto the misery with me? If he came home happy, that made me happy. Itried to keep the atmosphere at home pleasant.” After the child died, thewife expected the marriage to resume where it had “frozen nine yearsbefore,” but her husband continued going out without her, and evidenceof his infidelity piled up. “I had been used to not having a husband and I


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

didn’t care, I was too busy. Now I was alone and I couldn’t accept it. Af-ter a while I said ‘I won’t take this any more.’ ” From her description itseems plausible that he was provoking her to make the decision to sepa-rate. “They talked on the phone for hours. . . . I found make-up on hisshirts–the shirts that I washed and ironed for him!” When she asked fora divorce her husband, to her surprise, agreed. Yet even after the decreeshe did not move out of the home until her husband provoked her byfighting with their son. The wife signed the application for divorce pro-ceedings, but it seems her husband was pushing her to do so.

One woman initiator reports that her husband had adulterous rela-tionships throughout their thirty-year marriage. “Then I found out he’sin love with someone else. He broadcast it at home. I found condoms inhis pockets. He slept on the edge of the bed so I wouldn’t touch him,God forbid. It went on for three years.” Seven years later, “I initiated di-vorce proceedings. I found out about his current affair. I realized that healways had affairs, often several at once, each one didn’t know about theothers. . . . A year later there was a very violent incident. . . . From thatmoment his behavior just got worse and worse. It was like he wasn’tmarried at all.” There were many acute problems in the marriage: adul-tery, emotional abuse, non-support, gambling, and occasional violence.The impression she gives is that the flaunting of his adultery was one ofseveral forms of emotional abuse; the affair of the moment could not becalled a significant extramarital relationship. Given the demonstrativeflagrancy of the husband’s behavior, it is plausible that he was bent onprovoking her to initiate.

Six of these additional relationships were still viable at the time of theinterview (one to ten years after the divorce), indicating that they wereindeed significant. The one initiator whose extramarital relationship didnot continue after the divorce was James, who frankly reported that hehad never intended to commit adultery or to divorce, and that he lovedboth women. Apparently he did not transfer his intimate relatedness tothe second tie to as great an extent as the others did, which explains whyhe did and did not initiate: the process was begun by his disclosure of hisaffair, but he never reached the point of separation from his wife untilshe made the decision. Another man who acted similarly in resisting di-vorce while having an extramarital affair, Ellen’s husband, maintainedthe new relationship for years after the divorce.

Of the two spouses who (according to their spouse’s report) had rela-tionships but did not initiate, neither relationship was still viable at thetime of the interview. It is possible that these ties were less fulfilling orless dependable, and therefore less influential. There are interesting in-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

dividual factors for each. One was Adina’s husband, whose extramaritalrelationship sprang from his wife’s unavailability during nine years ofcaring for their sick child. It may be that he was restrained by guilt fromtaking the step; in her narrative we saw that he was quite provocative,pushing her to take the initiative. The other case was Tom’s wife, whogave up custody of her two children, which may have deterred her. Shetoo was extremely provocative in her pre-divorce behavior.

Pressing for Change in the Marriage

Three women narrators mention no direct efforts to improve the mar-riage, only arguments and demands. On the other hand, seven coupleswent to marital therapy or mediation, and most felt both sides did theirbest, to no avail. Joshua, a non-initiator, said, “My wife decided weshould go to mediation to try to improve the marriage. I think we bothtried our best. But after a year she decided it wasn’t working and we’regoing to divorce.” As Ann sees it, “He was already feeling the marriagewasn’t right. . . . We’d been to therapy together but it was never reallyserious. He tried but I was blocked, I just didn’t know what it was allabout.” In these couples, it was the partner who initiated therapy whoeventually initiated divorce. It is possible (as one narrator suggests) thatthis phenomenon is common because partners who feel they’re ap-proaching divorce use the initiation of therapy as a way to assuage theirguilt.

Six of the nine women narrators see themselves as pressing for posi-tive change in their marriages; only one sees her ex-spouse as doing so.Five of the six men see themselves trying to improve their marriage, andthree cite their ex-wives’s efforts. In ten couples the initiators are de-scribed as trying to improve the marriage–(nine self-reports). In otherwords, narrators seem far more aware of their own efforts than theirspouses.’ Again, this might be related to issues of guilt over being theinitiator. Martin now sees that his ex-wife (who initiated) had pressedfor change, “Because of extreme emphasis on investment in the kids, ormaybe because of being so involved in my work, maybe it was a lack ofinterest in an intimate relationship with her–we always had vacationswith the kids, never the two of us alone. This infuriated ‘my ex,’ shetried to convince me but I was insistent.” Aharon, who initiated (and hadan alternative relationship) says, “I asked Y., ‘What about us?’ and shesaid ‘Haven’t you forgotten that nonsense yet?’ So I wrote down every-thing I’d told her about separating. She kept the letter but she didn’t signit as I asked her to. . . . Her therapist tried to intervene. I wouldn’t stay


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

without a financial plan, and the therapist agreed with me. . . . ” Jenny,who reports thirty years of emotional abuse, adultery, and non-support,tells of five written agreements that she demanded and got from her hus-band, and three court hearings, before she followed through on her di-vorce suit. Her goal throughout was to maintain the marriage. “Whatkept me in the marriage was that he was like two people–either goodgood good or monstrous. The good part somehow seduced me or mademe believe in him. And of course I loved him.”

On the other hand, Sue and Jane report that they worked to improvethe marriage until their husbands decided to dissolve it. Sue says, “Itried to hold my family together and do everything to make him ‘loveme again.’ That’s impossible unless both sides are working to save themarriage. . . . Trying to make him happy, I became more and more of arag. Since he felt trapped he was abusive, emotionally.” Jane: “I startedpressuring him not to go away for so long. I said, ‘I’m cut off from whatyou’re doing, and you’re cut off from me and from the kids.’ . . . Afteranother of his long trips away from home, I initiated marital therapy andhe came. . . . The therapist wanted . . . me to affirm and encourage himmore. . . . There was no real change. . . . He wasn’t working, sleeping alot, bills piling up, and he wouldn’t talk about it.”

James, who disclosed his intention to leave for another woman, says,“I’d changed because I had the shock of my life (a heart attack). . . . I de-cided to enjoy myself. I tried many times to persuade M. (his wife) totravel alone, or go away for a weekend, but she was so devoted to thekids and the home, maybe she didn’t realize my need and desire tochange.” He clearly feels that his wife did not respond to his pain. Thisled eventually to circular initiation. Leah, who initiated, says, “Afterthat (a short extramarital affair) I felt I didn’t want to go on with this badmarriage. I got him to agree to marital therapy. But he never listened tome. He was just a wall. Didn’t understand me, didn’t want to.”

Outside Support

Although the family of origin of many of these narrators livedabroad, the emphasis in all cases was on the quality of emotional sup-port and degree of financial support; not on practical help and consider-ations of physical distance. Two of the narrators who did not initiate feltthat they should have, given their unhappiness in the marriage, butlacked sufficient support. Sue said, “My mother was mentally ill, Icouldn’t tell her (what was happening in her marriage) or anyone in myfamily. . . . They couldn’t handle it. I have two sisters, they didn’t know


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

anything about us till it was over. Because of my mother’s illness it wasa dysfunctional family, we were never close.” Jane, the mother of eight,had extensive support from her fellow-congregationists but was unableto take the initiative in spite of her fear that her husband might abandonher. “My father was hurt when we moved here (to Israel), we didn’thave any contact really. I see now that my father was also a failure fi-nancially, now they’re poor and can’t pay their bills. Both had a lot ofmedical bills. . . . I wrote them a long letter. My father made it clear:‘You made your bed, now sleep in it.’ S.’s (husband’s) family, they’renot in touch. . . . I tried to tell them what was happening, they seemed toknow but then they just changed the subject. Totally out to lunch.”

Jenny also had no support but eventually succeeded in getting her di-vorce. “I was alone throughout the whole process. Yeah, my parents in-tervened once when he was violent, but that was years ago. . . . They(her siblings) were happy for me that I was getting out, but my parentsaren’t living now, with siblings it’s different. Each one is busy with hisown life. There was no solidarity. . . . Once I got pregnant, I wanted anabortion very much. I asked my sister for money, she’s against abortionand she wouldn’t help me. I also had no friends. That was my biggestmistake, when I got married I lost touch with all my friends.”

Two initiators report significant emotional support, mainly fromfamily. John says, “The kids weren’t surprised, they saw the tension. . . .Each in their own way was tremendously supportive, without takingsides. They supported both of us: her in her despair and dejection andanger and everything else, me in making this move. . . . I have a largefamily–eight siblings. . . . Those I’m close to were not surprised, theyhad sensed the difficulties. . . . Most were pretty supportive. . . . I havetwo brothers, both Charedi (ultra-orthodox). I never got on too wellwith them . . . But they’ve been very supportive. One came to visit thenight I left home, to express solidarity. I was very much touched bythat.” Leah: “I couldn’t have done it without my parents. They gave methe money to buy out his half of the house. And monthly support as longas I needed it. . . . I went for Paola treatment for my migraines, I becamevery friendly with my therapist. She gave me practical advice–she’stwice divorced–and personal support. I’d call her ten times a day.” Sheadds that her husband had no emotional support: “G. was envious of myrelationship with my sister and my family. His parents divorced whenhe was seven or eight, his mother left him with his father. It seems likehis mother mourned her dead daughter (who died in the Holocaust) allher life. G. never felt loved.”


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

None of the interviewees considered whether their ex-spouses werehelped by family or social support or hindered by lack of it in the di-vorce process.

Economic Factors

Only one of these fifteen narrators overtly gave significant weight toeconomic factors in the deterioration of the marriage. Ahron’s explana-tion of the deterioration of his marriage centers firmly on his wife’s ex-aggerated spending and their consequent debts; this seems to be at thecenter of their marital dialogue. In other cases the importance of finan-cial issues in taking the initiative can be inferred. Joshua felt that theknowledge that she would be financially comfortable contributed to hiswife’s decision to divorce: “She’s well taken care of. She works, and Ipay her child support, and her family helps her if she needs it, and all themajor expenses for the kids are on me.”

For Tom, unemployed during most of his marriage, the most impor-tant step toward divorce was ensuring a steady income, because hewanted (and got) custody of his two children. “I saw a lawyer, he said ifI want custody of the (two) kids I have to have permanent employment.I started teaching English in the afternoon and evening, I’d be home inthe evening to cook and see to the kids’ showers and all that.” In spite ofhis physical limitations and the fact that his wife was the principalwage-earner, he initiated. He says nothing of his wife’s feelings abouttheir financial situation or about being the main wage-earner.

Of the two women who reported the most acute problems in theirmarriage, the one who worked throughout her marriage, Jenny, initiatedher divorce; Jane, who did not work, didn’t initiate. Jane said, “I totallydevoted myself to the family 110%. Never worked out of the house. Thekids at home till they were four-years-old. Old Mother Earth (laughs). . . .He took over everything financial, I knew nothing. I had no bank account,didn’t know what was in the account.” After twenty years at home shealso lacked competence in dealing with legal and practical matters:

The mediator knew him well, she said we weren’t mediatable. . . .Everyone, including the rabbi, was telling me I have to do it, so Iwouldn’t be left without the Get (divorce decree). . . . But I wasn’tready. And I was afraid to go to a public lawyer. I didn’t know He-brew and I didn’t know anything about the system.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Of all the fifteen women, only two–Jane and Ann (both self-re-ported)–had not worked steadily throughout their married lives. Neitherinitiated divorce.

Health Factors

Three initiators (Sarah, Tom, and Vicky) suffer from serious chronichealth problems, but still took the initiative to divorce (self-reported).As Vicky puts it, “I retired early, I couldn’t function with my back. I wasin terrible pain. But I knew I had to get out, no matter what. . . . Look, Iwasn’t rich when I was married, and I’m not now either. I get on.”

Tom was prevented from working steadily by limited knowledge ofHebrew and health factors: “Because of physical problems, I couldn’tcope with certain jobs. I started as an apprentice chef, I did very well butI couldn’t stand for more than an hour, I was forced to give it up. . . . I re-cently learned I have serious deformation of the spine from a hormonalimbalance in adolescence. . . . ” His wife, according to his description,suffered from recurrent “nervous breakdowns.” Although less healthyphysically and less professionally competent than his wife (who workedthroughout the marriage), he initiated his divorce and took custody ofhis children, aged eleven and nine.

Sarah said, “Look, it’s not easy. I’m not all that healthy, it wasn’teasy. I was born with a heart problem, I was very sick during my lastpregnancy.” Her husband, suffering from PTSD, was not functioning;in spite of her health problem, she was the stronger of the two. She is theonly narrator who reports initiating against a spouse with impairedfunctioning. It is possible that in other cases where the non-initiator hada serious health problem, the initiator does not mention it out of a senseof guilt. This might be one of the behaviors a narrator does not willinglyreport.

Emotional or Physical Abuse

Two women describe overt emotionally abusive behavior on the partof their husbands. Jenny reports two incidents of physical abuse as well;the second of these triggered yet another court hearing which eventuallyled to divorce, initiated by her. For her it was the abuse, chronic and es-calating, that caused her to initiate. But Ellen says, “The scary thing is, Inever would have left. Because of the insecurity. When you’re in anabusive relationship, you’re so beaten down you have no confidence.When he first told me I didn’t get enraged or kick him out–I tried to be


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

meek and save the situation.” For her the abuse was a factor in prevent-ing her from initiating.

If we include open flaunting of adultery in emotional abuse (evenwhen the spouse does not use the term), we must add the two couples(James, Ellen) where the man proclaimed his other relationship, refusedto give it up and resisted leaving the home; the couple (Yael) whose ini-tiation was completely mutual; and two more couples where one side(Tom’s wife, Adina’s husband) was openly involved with another part-ner.

No narrators report abusive behavior on their own part toward theirspouse.

Absent Partners

The most extreme case of emotional and physical absence from thehome was Sarah’s husband. After suffering severe trauma in the war inLebanon, “He was very strange when he came home. Very strange.Later we realized it was the trauma. . . . I only knew it wasn’t the sameman I married. He behaved strangely. . . . He wouldn’t go for treatment.. . . He slowly got farther and farther away. He was an only son, and hisparents were old, and he went to take care of them. He’d go there at 6a.m. and come home in the middle of the night. Every day, all week,Shabbat and holidays. . . . After the (fourth) baby was born, he was veryhappy to have him but he left us–he went to his parents’ . . . I actuallydidn’t have a husband, only on paper. So I said, ‘What do I need thisfor?’”

Leah describes a reciprocal process of distancing: “When he got aprestigious job at a new place, he got totally wrapped up in it. He washardly ever home any more.” Not long after she had a health crisis andchose to recuperate in her parents’ home abroad for two months; herhusband reacted with anger. Later she had a short extramarital affairwhich also affected her feelings toward the marriage. By the time sheinitiated divorce, they were both distancing from each other.

Jane’s husband was physically absent on long business trips abroad.She protested and he initiated. Ellen says her husband was absent, too,but she was comfortable with this at first: “He was always traveling, onbusiness. I was never jealous in any way.” While Ellen’s husband wasan excellent provider and they maintained a “swinging” lifestyle thatshe liked very much, Jane and her family lived in poverty; this may ac-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

count for the difference in their attitudes toward absence. Neither Janenor Ellen initiated.

Self-Esteem and Status in the Marriage

Only one narrator, James, (who initiated), describes himself as hav-ing high self-esteem; he also feels regretfully that he dominated his wifeinappropriately. Ten narrators (six women and four men) mentionedthat their poor self-esteem or lower relative status affected their mar-riages. Aharon (an initiator) felt that his wife exploited the difference intheir levels of education to raise her status in the marriage: “She alwayssaw herself as better than me, more educated. She’s a certified artteacher. She’s good at art, she’s very creative. But that was also spoiledover the years, because she wouldn’t work at it.” Aharon felt dominatedand exploited. He took a job that his wife chose for him, allowed her tointerfere in his business, and felt that she ruined them financially. In hisopinion he’s a “sardine,” a small and powerless fish that has to avoidconflict. Eventually he initiated divorce.

In other narratives there was a sense of unequal status in the maritaldynamic: one side being typically on the defensive. Ellen (in spite ofhaving more education and higher professional status) says, “I had aloose, wild side that my parents always tried to beat out of me, in mar-riage J. beat it out of me. No, not physically. But very emotionally abu-sive. Wrapped in humor, which is classic cover for emotional abuse. Idon’t look meek, I didn’t then either. You can be normal in the rest ofthe world and in the intimate relationship. . . . ” Leah: “I had a lot ofproblems when I got married. Extremely low self-esteem. G. (herex-husband) is very similar, it’s like a mirror-image, and he took it outon me. He kept me down.” Leah initiated; Ellen and Sue did not.

Ellen and Leah explicitly tie their lowered status in the marriage totheir low self-esteem. In Ann’s (non-initiator) narrative the tie is im-plicit. “I didn’t come as a Zionist, I didn’t know the language or knowpeople, I had a very tough time at the beginning. I became very depend-ent on my husband, he was very helpful at that time. . . . My self-es-teem’s much better now, after. I had felt fantastic about this great man Imarried and my lovely family, but underneath I had no confidence inmyself. Now that’s past and I’m a lot stronger.”

Tom, who initiated, and Jane, who did not, see themselves as suffer-ing from low self-esteem. For Tom the basic problem was physical: “Ihad this hormonal imbalance in adolescence, it left me with big hands


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and feet and this. (Points to his elongated jaw.) I always felt inferiorabout my looks, I never felt attractive to women. For a long time I didn’teven try (to get close to women).” As for status or power within the mar-riage, he lost the ongoing battle to have the family live in England wherehe could work; and his then wife openly flaunted her adulterous rela-tionship.

Jane describes herself as immature at marriage, and since immigra-tion to Israel she has “. . . felt like three-years-old. I couldn’t communi-cate, I didn’t know the system. It was so hard. . . . And I was still veryyoung, still suffering from the emotional gaps from my mother. Sothat’s the kind of mother I was–you don’t let your kids go (explainingwhy she didn’t finish her university studies).” She emphasizes her dys-functional family of origin and her resulting insecurity.

No narrator mentions their ex-partner’s self-esteem, high or low.

Dominance

Sarah is aware of having dominated her ex-spouse to some extent,mainly due to personality differences, without the implication of emo-tional abuse: “Yes, there were hints (of his passivity before the trau-matic war experience). He was never an active person. It suited me,because I’m very active. It suited: one Moroccan in a marriage isenough, you don’t need two. I thought it was great for me, a quiet, calmhusband. . . . First you get up (in the morning) and make coffee, andmake more coffee, and light five cigarettes, and he still doesn’t knowwhat he’s going to do today. That’s not my speed.” She was the “initia-tor.” James also indicates, regretfully, that he tended to dominate. Noother narrators see themselves as dominant.

One woman and three men feel they were dominated (though notabused) by their ex-partner. Sue (a non-initiator) describes it thus: “Afriend said to me, ‘When you were 18 you had a light around you, andover the years it’s gone out.’ Part of that was that he had a very strongpersonality, mine was decent-sized but smaller, and I guess I let himswallow me up. Then he went and found someone, maybe with a stron-ger personality.” Martin (a non-initiator) tells how he had to listen tomusic with earphones because his wife didn’t like the music he liked;and to fit their social and cultural life to the unusually early hours shekept. He felt that keeping the peace was more important than getting hisway, and was not aware of feeling “dominated”–until a personal healthand emotional crisis brought him to personal therapy, where he startedlooking at the problems of the marriage.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Joshua’s (a non-initiator) narrative implies his wife’s dominance, buthe doesn’t complain. He said, “We had no social life except my wife’sfamily. They were our close friends and our close family. . . . We nearlydivorced several times, we even got as far as seeing a lawyer. But eachtime I begged my wife and promised to change things, and she did me afavor and agreed to stay. . . . When the mediator asked me why I wantedto stay together, I didn’t know what to answer. I guess I was just afraidof change.”

Ellen, a non-initiator, brought her family to Israel somewhat againsther husband’s will; yet sees herself as emotionally abused. Which is thedominant partner here?

Thus we see that initiators sprang from both the dominators and thedominated, with a few more of the former.

DISCUSSION

Ten factors of marital dynamics have been examined in the 15 narra-tives in an attempt to answer the research questions: (a) What character-izes the partner who takes the formal initiative to divorce in long-termmarriages? (b) Is it more relevant to describe the initiative as a unilateralact, or as a joint process which is only vocalized by one side? These fac-tors are: gender; the presence of an alternative relationship; pressing forchange in the marriage; outside support; economic factors; health; emo-tional or physical abuse; absent partners; self-esteem and status; anddominance.

The gender ratio in this sample differs from earlier research, whichgenerally reports that about 2/3 of initiators are women. (e.g., Braver etal., 1993). Here the initiator is not necessarily the healthier partner (asMeyers, 1995, reported); on the contrary, in this group, no spouse re-ports initiating against a partner in bad health, and only one initiatedagainst a partner whose functioning was severely impaired due to poormental health.

Initiators and non-initiators differ most in the presence of a signifi-cant alternative relationship. In the nine couples where such a relation-ship existed, seven initiators had such a relationship. Thus 50% of theinitiators (75% of the male initiators!) in this group had alternative part-ners to turn to (as compared with the finding in Pettit and Bloom, 1984,that 25% of initiators had alternative relationships). South and Lloyd(1993) reported that “a substantial percentage” (in a mixed-age) popula-tion) had “outside romantic involvement” prior to divorce. In the pres-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ent group there is a striking difference between men and women. Of thesix women who initiated, only one had an alternative relationship; six ofthe eight male initiators did! This seems to indicate that men are moreemotionally dependent on their major intimate relationship, and find itharder to divorce when they do not have a new partner waiting(Dreman, S., & Aldor, R., 1994). Six of these relationships were still vi-able (in some form) at the time of the interview (one to ten years afterthe divorce), indicating that they were indeed significant, and presum-ably provided much of the motivation and support for the initiator.

It must be noted that most of the reports of the initiator having an al-ternative relationship come from the other spouse. None of the womennarrators, initiators and non-initiators alike, reports having such a rela-tionship herself. Two men report that they had a steady relationship atthe time they inititated; one emphasizes that he divorced because of theproblems of the marriage. Four women state that their husbands initi-ated when they had extramarital ties; the weight they assign this rela-tionship in the initiation varies from major to minor. Thus one gets theimpression that very few people (and perhaps no women) will say aboutthemselves “I initiated my divorce in order to be with someone else,”but they will say it about their ex-spouses. It is also possible that througha covert process of self-selection, people will only agree to be inter-viewed when they have a narrative of their divorce they feel comfort-able telling. Some may have adjusted their narratives to make themsocially acceptable–or may have repressed or denied undesirable be-havior on their own part.

More initiators are to be found among spouses described as dominantthan dominated. This contradicts the intuitive assumption that the domi-nated spouse is the more unhappy one (which need not be true). Or, thedominated partner may indeed be more unhappy yet not initiate, asPettit and Bloom, (1984), concluded. The tendency of dominantspouses to initiate divorce seems to indicate that “the initiator” is oftenthe more active partner. S/he is often the one with good family support,and the one with another relationship waiting. But the ingredients forthe decision were contributed by both sides over many years. Oftenenough it looks like the initiator was manipulated into taking the painfuland guilt-arousing step. As one person cannot make a marriage succeed,neither is there sole responsibility for a divorce.

“Absenting” oneself from the marriage (spending considerablenon-working time away from the family, and investing emotionally inother relationships or projects) is active in the sense that it is an attemptto improve one’s own quality of life. In fact, however, those who chose


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

this solution were more often initiated against than initiators; so that be-ing the “absent” partner apparently does not belong to the “active” clus-ter. Perhaps this chosen life-style improved their quality of life enoughto reduce their need for and interest in divorce; while having negativeeffects on the quality of the marriage. Or, it may be more appropriate tosee “absenting” as a passive, avoidant solution; in which case it wouldbe natural for an “absentee” not to initiate.

Pressing for change in the marriage is another active tactic. However,since eleven narrators describe their own efforts in this area while onlyone cites his spouse’s, there is not enough evidence here to ground aconclusion that pressing for change belongs to the cluster of active char-acteristics that characterize initiators.

It is impossible to offer any speculations about the contribution ofself-esteem to initiation, because the material in these narratives isone-sided. Only one participant gives any attention to the ex-spouse’sself-esteem. Those who speak of their own self-esteem are concernedwith their lack of it. There are no reports of a spouse’s suffering fromlow self-esteem or status in the marriage and almost none of narrators’perceiving themselves as having the higher status or stronger self-es-teem. This invites the speculation that when they think in terms of di-vorce, narrators inadvertently/unconsciously focus more on problemsor pain than on positive aspects of the marriage; somewhat different ma-terial might emerge if the topic were marriage.

Being emotionally abused–in the narrator’s own terms–did not nec-essarily lead to initiating divorce. When overt adultery is considered aform of abuse though not so named, the result is the same: half of theabused initiated, half did not. Apparently abuse can function either as amotivator to escape the marriage or as a debilitating influence which re-duces the victim’s capacity to fight back or to separate in self defense.

Most of these narrators do not consider economic factors to havebeen a significant factor in the issue of initiation. In the two cases ofnon-support, there were additional problems of no less importance. In-terestingly, the one male who was not self-supporting did initiate his di-vorce, while the two women who did not work, did not. It seems that awoman who does not work may lack both confidence in her financialfuture and the self-confidence and experience that would support a wishto divorce. Men might take confidence from stereotypical assumptionsof competence.

More initiators are reported to have significant outside support,mainly from their families of origin. Friends and therapists are alsomentioned as sources of support. Yet several of the non-initiators had


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

supportive families as well. Thus the presence of support is not enoughto turn a sufferer into an initiator.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Divorce is a complex and highly emotional experience. It is not easyto take responsibility for terminating a marriage of many years. Nor is iteasy to be rejected by one’s spouse. Asking people to tell about this ex-perience may arouse powerful and uncomfortable emotions; the act oftelling may be satisfying or unsettling for narrators, and they do not al-ways know ahead of time which it will be. I have tried to minimize emo-tional discomfort, should it arise, by encouraging the narrators tocontact me if they later wish to continue the discussion. Since none didso, I do not know how the experience in fact affected them. It wouldhave been better to contact each one several days after the interview, tohear how they feel and to allow further discussion.

Confidentiality was ensured by my transcribing all interviews my-self, deleting all names and identifying information (such as place ofwork). I explained this to all interviewees, and they expressed satisfac-tion with these precautions. However, should any one of them read thisor other articles, they could probably identify their own quotations.How they would feel about this and the accompanying interpretationscannot be predicted.

Each narrator here is one side of a divorced couple. In many cases the“other side” is represented here by their ex in a negative light. Thoughevery effort has been made to ensure their anonymity, still their story istheir property, to share or not. Inadvertently their story is being toldwithout their knowledge or permission and in a form they undoubtedlywould not agree with. Is this ethical?

LIMITATION OF THE RESEARCH, SUGGESTIONSFOR FURTHER RESEARCH,

AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Comparing narratives from both ex-spouses would both prevent theethical problems that result from presenting only one side, and provide aricher picture of each couple. At the same time it would probably un-cover many contradictions and conflicting interpretations. Interpreting


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

such paired narratives would be a challenge for any researcher, and asource of intriguing material.

There are some things that none of the narrators say about them-selves; this material may be undiscussable or undescribable for them(Bar-On, 1990). None says that they initiated divorce because of an al-ternative relationship; that they were abusive in any way to theirspouses; or that they were “absent” spouses. Presumably their exeswould tell a somewhat different story. Thus there is a hint that most nar-rators relate mainly positive things about themselves; and that whateverguilt they may have felt earlier has been denied, repressed or rational-ized away; or is being hidden. In addition, each told the divorce storyfrom their own perspective (as indeed they were asked to). Therefore inmany cases little is said about the ex-spouses’ experience. Only com-parison of both narratives from each couple can offer equal representa-tion to both parties.

Since there is some evidence that these narrators inadvertently em-phasized mainly the negative and problematic aspects of the marriage, itseems advisable to ask for positive features as well in future research.

Since little research is available on marital failure in older couples,this material may enrich the knowledge and understanding of therapistswho work with them. A clearer picture of factors which encourage initi-ation in older cohorts may help marital therapists in evaluating their cli-ents and in focusing them on the more influential issues.

CONCLUSION

The material uncovered by the present research does not provide adecisive profile of a divorce initiator. Many seem to be the more activepartner in the marriage; but not all. Having an alternative relationshipwas the most salient factor–far more so for men than for women. How-ever, the descriptive and explanatory power of any factor or cluster offactors pales beside that of the precis of the story of the marriage and itsdecline. There, each divorce is clearly revealed to be the end of athree-legged march: tied together at the middle, both partners must keepwalking in the same direction, with considerable mutual accommoda-tion. One cannot get there alone, and the two cannot reach it in a jump ortwo. Probably many couples share an invisible dynamic wherein hopefeeds hope and despair feeds despair–a process not often verbalized.Narrative research is able to give these subtle processes a voice to speakthrough.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

REFERENCES

Bar-On, D. (1990). The Indescribable and the Undiscussable. Budapest: Central EuropeanPress.

Bogdan, R. C., and Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative Research for Education. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.

Bowen, M., MD, (1985). Family Therapy In Clinical Practice. Northvale: Jason Aronson.Braver, S. L., Whitley, M., and Ng., C. (1993). Who divorced whom? Methodological

and theoretical issues. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 20(1/2), p. 1-19.Central Bureau of Statistics (1998). Population, Natural Movement, and Immigration.

Prime Minister’s Office, Jerusalem.Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand

Oaks: Sage.Dolan, M. A., and Hoffman, C .D., (1998). Determinants of divorce among women: A re-

examination of critical influences. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 28(3/4), 97- 106.Dreman, S., and Aldor, R. (1994) A comparative study of custodial mothers and fathers in

the stabilization phase of the divorce process. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage21(3/4), p. 59-79.

Goodman, C. C. (1993). Divorce after long term marriages: Former spouse relationships.Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 20(3/4), p. 43-61.

Halpern, E., (2001). Family psychology from and Israeli perspective. American Psychol-ogy, 56, p. 58-64.

Hayes, M. P., Stinnett, N., and Defrain, J. (1980). Learning about marriage from the di-vorced. Journal of Divorce, 4(1), p. 23-29.

Kistner, M. A. (1994). Adjustment to divorce as related to stability and change in identity ina midlife cohort of women. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut) Disserta-tion Abstracts International-A 56/04, 1543.

Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach. R., & Zilber, T., (1998). Narrative Research. ThousandOaks: Sage.

McLain, S. C. (1997). Divorce adjustment among caucasian women divorcing at midlife.(Doctoral dissertation, University of Memphis) Dissertation Abstracts International-A58/08, 3022.

Meyers, M. F. (1995) Men and Divorce. NY: The Guilford Press.Petit, E. J., and Bloom, B. L. (1984) Whose decision was it? The effects of initiator

status on adjustment to marital disruption. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 46(3), p. 587-595.

Rosenthal, G. (1993). Reconstruction of life stories. Principles of selection in generatingstories for narrative biographical interviews. In R. Josselson, & A. Lieblich (Eds.), TheNarrative Study of Lives, 1, 59-91. London: Sage.

South, S., & Lloyd, K. M. (1995). Spousal alternatives and marital dissolution. AmericanSociological Review, 60, 21-35.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park: Sage.Uhlenberg, P., Cooney, T., & Boyd, R. (1990). Divorce for women after midlife. Journal of

Gerontology: Social Sciences, 45, S3-S11.Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980). Surviving the Breakup. New York: Basic Books.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14


APPENDIX. Demographic Data of Narrators

PSEUDONYM AGE ATDIVORCE

YEARSSINCE

DIVORCE

# OFCHILDREN

EDUCATION INITIATIONSTATUS

Jane 45 1 8 13 yrs. Non-initiator

Sue 46 2 3 MA Non-initiator

Sarah 45 10 3 BA Initiator

Ellen 52 2 2 PhD Non-initiator

Leah 45 6 3 MA Initiator

Yael 46 1 2 MA Mutual

Ann 50 1 3 BA Non-initiator

Adina 48 9 2 (onedeceased)

Teachers'seminar

Initiator

Jenny 52 1.5 3 12 yrs. Initiator

Tom 49 3 2 BA Initiator

John 51 1 4 MA Initiator

James 55 4 3 15 yrs. Initiator

Ahron 47 1 4 11 yrs. Initiator

Martin 52 1 2 MA Non-initiator

Joshua 46 3 4 MA Non-initiator

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f Pi

ttsbu

rgh]

at 2

0:01

13

Nov

embe

r 20

14

who pulls the trigger?

Documents