Face and Resilience in Divorce

Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships
http://spr.sagepub.com/
Face and resilience in divorce: The impact on emotions, stress, and

post-divorce relationships
Brandi N. Frisby, Melanie Booth-Butterfield, Megan R. Dillow, Matthew M. Martin and
Keith D. Weber
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 2012 29: 715 originally published online 18
April 2012
DOI: 10.1177/0265407512443452
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/29/6/715
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Association for Relationship Research
Additional services and information for Journal of Social and Personal Relationships can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://spr.sagepub.com/content/29/6/715.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Aug 28, 2012
OnlineFirst Version of Record - Apr 18, 2012
What is This?
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 10, 2014
JSPR
Article
Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships
Face and resilience in 29(6) 715735
The Author(s) 2012
divorce: The impact on Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
emotions, stress, and DOI: 10.1177/0265407512443452

spr.sagepub.com
post-divorce relationships
Brandi N. Frisby1, Melanie Booth-Butterfield2,

Megan R. Dillow2, Matthew M. Martin2, and Keith D. Weber2
Abstract
Facework and resilience frameworks were employed to examine threats to, and the
protection of, marital partners identity during divorce and as they relate to outcomes
associated with divorce. Divorced participants (N 103) reported on the commu-
nicative face threats and support during divorce, reporting greater positive face threat
and negative facework during divorce. The non-initiator experienced negative outcomes,
including negative face threat and negative emotion, but reported no differences in stress
when compared to the initiator or mutual decision makers. In addition, positive face
threats and facework during divorce predicted post-divorce relationships. Specifically,
low positive face threat and high positive face support were related to divorcees inclina-
tion to engage in positive interpersonal relationships after the divorce.
Keywords
Divorce, emotion, face support, face support, resilience, stress
Spouses are the primary relationship for most adults (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001).
In fact, marital partners are considered both important and irreplaceable by their spouses
(Cutrona & Suhr, 1994; McKenry & Price, 1991). Despite this categorization as a pri-
mary, important, and irreplaceable relationship, even marriage is not always a permanent
1
University of Kentucky, USA
2
West Virginia University, USA
Corresponding author:
Brandi N. Frisby, University of Kentucky, 310G Lucille C. Little Library, Lexington, KY 40506, USA.
Email: brandi.frisby@uky.edu
716 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 29(6)
union. Approximately one-third of first marriages end in divorce within 10 years, and
50% of all first marriages will end in divorce at some point in the lifespan (Braver, Sha-
piro, & Goodman, 2006; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2002).
Divorce has both immediate and long-term consequences for the divorcees, extended
family, and children involved. It is the most traumatic situation, having the furthest
reaching implications of all life events (Amato, 2000). More recent reviews of the
divorce literature continue to reveal negative outcomes for divorcees (Amato, 2010).
Divorcees often experience deteriorated physical and psychological conditions for years
following marital termination including guilt, depression, distress, and intimacy issues
(Afifi & Hamrick, 2006; Waite, Luo, & Lewin, 2009). Leary, Koch, and Hechenbleikner
(2001) found that those who experienced the loss of an intimate relationship, such as a
marital relationship, could escalate into more serious issues, including substance abuse,
suicidal thoughts, or suicide attempts. The well-documented negative impact of divorce
speaks to the importance of understanding ways to alleviate the detrimental psychologi-
cal, emotional, and physiological consequences that divorcees experience. While these
effects seem grave, some individuals who go through a divorce experience positive out-
comes. Individuals who experience these positive outcomes appear to be more resilient
to this adverse event. There are several potential explanations for the positive outcomes.
Firstly, positivity following divorce may be a result of effective conflict management
and feelings of relief. Amato (2000) argued that the results of divorce can be positive
when problems between the divorcing partners are resolved effectively. Much research
has focused on conflict management as one way to enhance perceptions of successful
dissolution, and productive outcomes post-divorce. Spouses may experience loneliness
and depression while married (Doohan, Carrere, & Riggs, 2010) and may view divorce
as an exit from an already negative situation. For example, some divorcees even expe-
rience feelings of happiness, freedom, and demonstrate progress by reinventing them-
selves following the decision to divorce (Tashiro & Frazier, 2003).
Secondly, some individuals may be more resilient. Bonanno (2004) argued that
resilience may occur as a result of other factors, including relationship quality, support,
ones worldview, and contextual factors in which the adverse event occurred (Bonanno,
Wortman, & Nesse, 2004). The extant research on resilience after divorce has almost
exclusively focused on the resilience of children from divorced families (e.g., Chen &
George, 2005; Mulholland, Watt, Philpott, & Sarlin, 1991) or resilience of the parent
child relationship following divorce (e.g., Golby & Bretherton, 1999). Instead, this study
examined face supportive communication early in the divorce process as a potential
contextual and protective factor to enhance resilient responses in divorcees during and
after the divorce process.
Thirdly, strategic facework, or the protection of the former spouses identity and
feelings when requesting a divorce, may be related to perceptions of an effective divorce
and resilience. Practicing facework very early in the divorce process may be associated
with lower face threat, and reduced subsequent conflict between the individuals. Face
sensitive divorce talks may also maintain the face of each divorcee to his/her social
networks and families, setting the stage for a more amicable termination. Thus, the
current study had three purposes: (1) to examine face threat and facework in divorce; (2)
to differentiate between initiators, non-initiators, and mutual divorce decision makers;
Frisby et al. 717
and (3) to examine the inter-relationship of face threats and facework and emotions,
stress, and the post-divorce relationship.
Face and facework in divorce

Goffman (1967) defined face as the positive social value a person effectively claims for
himself (p. 5). Individuals portray this constructed self to others and seek support for
this identity. Individuals believe that their identity, or face, is important to them and
will work to have that identity accepted (Cupach & Metts, 1994). Within every
interaction, two faces are presented (i.e., positive and negative). Positive face is the
desire for approval, closeness, solidarity, and liking, while negative face is a need for
autonomy and freedom from imposition (Holtgraves, 2001). When identity is not
supported, people experience face threats. Senders who realize that they are threa-
tening anothers face may attempt to temper the perceived face threat through face-
work (Goffman, 1967). Ideally, interactants will communicate to maintain both faces
of all parties involved (Goffman, 1967).
Divorce is one context where the identity of communication partners may be
threatened. Kunkel, Wilson, Olufowote, and Robson (2003) argued that relational dis-
solution episodes are inherently face threatening, and Cupach and Metts (1994) speculated
that relational dissolution was the most face-threatening interpersonal event. Divorcing
couples may communicate in ways that protect their own, their partners, or both individ-
uals faces. In the event that dissatisfied spouses do not communicate to protect their part-
ner, face threats occur. Spouses may try to temper face threats by focusing on the partners
positive qualities, or including them in the divorce decision (i.e., practicing facework),
while simultaneously dissolving the relationship. The communication of face threats or
face support can occur early in the divorce process, and may set the stage for the continu-
ing interactions between the former spouses. Only Miller (2009a) has directly examined
face threats and facework in divorcing couples, finding that the face concerns reported
involved parental identity. Gregson and Ceynar (2009) found that women had to separate
themselves from the marriage and reconstruct a new post-divorce identity. Similarly, our
study focused on the marital identity of the former spouses. During the divorce, individuals
may feel that they were incompetent in the relationship, no longer liked, or that they do not
have a choice, all of which may increase face threat and negative consequences. Conse-
quently, facework strategies communicated during divorce may be related to a variety
of post-divorce outcomes.
Resiliency in divorce
The theoretical framework employed here involves risk and resilience models that
conceptualize complex factors contributing to positive outcomes. Appropriate commu-
nication at the time of a negative event has the capacity to improve subsequent functions.
Some individuals exit divorce with relatively few negative outcomes, demonstrating
resilience, defined as the ability to maintain relatively stable, healthy levels of psy-
chological and physiological functioning (Bonanno, 2004, p. 20). In fact, Bonanno
et al. (2002) found that resilience was more common than grief. People who are resilient
exhibit fewer depression and grief symptoms (Bonanno et al., 2002). Most resilience
research investigating loss has focused on death (e.g., Bonanno et al., 2002, 2004).
However, resiliency should also be considered in divorce, as individuals who have
experienced separation and rejection from a marital partner physiologically and psy-
chologically may experience grief similar to those who have lost a loved one through
death (Archer & Fisher, 2008; Seery, Holman, Alison, & Silver, 2010).
Risk and resilience models focus on the risk factors that affect the outcomes of
individuals when faced with life stressors such as divorce (Deater-Deckard & Dunn,
1999; Seery, et al., 2010). In line with Walsh (2002), who identified communication
as one of three primary factors affecting resilience, Afifi and colleagues contend that
communication is one specific risk factor that can lead to either positive or negative out-
comes (Afifi and Hamrick; 2006; Afifi & Keith, 2004) For example, Afifi and Keith
(2004) found that for children of divorce the quality of contact, self-disclosure, and par-
ental conflict were the communicative factors that affected their resilience to the divorce.
However, Afifi and Nussbaum (2006) note that many of the studies using risk and resi-
liency models focused on children of divorce. Amato (2010) recognized that a variety of
factors can influence the adjustment, whether positive or negative, of former spouses as
well. Following Afifi and Hamricks (2006) and Afifi and Keiths (2004) approach to
focusing on communication, this study examined the relationship between communica-
tion processes that occur during the divorce adjustment and resilience. Instead, this study
focused on resilience in former spouses.
Identifying factors that enhance risk or resilience following divorce could allow
researchers and practitioners to target specific people who are in need of a post-divorce
intervention or counseling. An understanding of the different responses to divorce, and
who will respond in particular ways, can also inform social networks about providing
comfort, since social networks are often a primary source of support following disso-
lution (Kincaid & Caldwell, 1991). One step toward identifying those who are at more
risk begins with understanding contextual factors, as suggested by Bonanno (2004).
Specifically, understanding the context in which the divorce is set into motion, begin-
ning with the decision to divorce, and the roles individuals play in the divorce, will
begin to illuminate risks that each partner may face.
Roles in divorce and resiliency

Numerous studies have revealed significant differences based on the role played in the
dissolution decision (e.g., Boelen & Reijntjes, 2009; Doering, 2010; Perilloux & Buss,
2008; Thuen & Eikeland, 1998). When partners decide that they are no longer committed
to continuing a relationship, they begin the process of disengaging. Despite the initiators
decision to dissolve the relationship, Kunkel et al. (2003) argued that the person who
initiates the end of the relationship is often concerned with threats to positive face, or
appearing insensitive or uncaring to the partner. Thus, even for the initiator, it is often
difficult to disengage. Still, outcomes may differ for initiators because they are aware
that the dissolution is approaching. Bevvino and Sharkin (2003) suggest that initiators
may contemplate the dissolution for approximately five years, prepare emotionally and
mentally for the divorce, and find positive meaning in terminating the relationship.
Frisby et al. 719
Consistent with that argument, additional research revealed that dissolution initiators
report experiencing lower disturbance scores on grief (Boelen & Reijntjes, 2009), more
happiness (Perriloux & Buss, 2008), and improved adaptation to divorce (Thuen &
Eikeland, 1998).
Non-initiators, or the person who does not desire or request a divorce, but rather
receives the decision from the partner, are often viewed as having the more difficult role
to play in the interaction. Non-initiators suffer more emotionally, reporting greater grief,
depression, and anxiety (Boelen & Reijntjes, 2009; Perilloux & Buss, 2008). Kunkel
et al. (2003) reasoned that the non-initiator felt that they had not earned approval or lik-
ing from their partner. Thus, partners being left may question their individual worth and
relational competence. Non-initiators evidenced lower resilience in that they experi-
enced more negative outcomes, such as greater depression, rumination, crying, pleading
(Perilloux & Buss, 2008), sadness, anger, confusion, shock, and jealousy (Leary,
Springer, Negel, Ansell, & Evans, 1998).
Although research exists that delineates differences in perceptions and outcomes
based on the role in the divorce decision, initiators and non-initiators exhibited some
similar outcomes, including vengefulness, indifference, fear, remorse, and regret (Peri-
lloux & Buss, 2008). Other research has failed to find significant differences in affect,
adjustment, or well-being (Kincaid & Caldwell, 1991; Tashiro & Frazier, 2003). The
lack of apparent differences may be attributed to the categorization of divorcees into
polar opposite groups (i.e., initiator or non-initiator). To further complicate the matter,
previous research has placed those who labeled the decision as mutual into the initiator
category (e.g., Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 1988; Kincaid & Caldwell, 1991). More recent
research revealed that 1319% of their samples reported that the divorce was a mutual
decision (Bevvino & Sharkin, 2003; Thuen & Eikeland, 1998). This proportion of
mutually deciding divorcees should not be ignored or treated as unilateral initiators.
It is expected that the degree of responsibility a partner has in the dissolution
decision process will guide perceptions formed about the divorce. Gray and Silver
(1990) argued that the level of control in the decision was positively related to post-
divorce adjustment, and negatively related to distress, preoccupation, and regret.
Following this logic, it is expected that mutual decision makers will each take
responsibility for the demise of the marriage, that each partner will maintain control
in the divorce decision, and avoid threats to negative face. Subsequently, mutual
decision makers should perceive the divorce differently than those who lose control
in the termination of the marriage.
Facework and resiliency in divorce outcomes

Following dissolution, individuals often experience negative changes in affect, well-
being, and overall functioning (Frazier & Cook, 1993). Divorcees may suffer from a loss
of trust, lowered self-esteem, anxiety, increased worry about being hurt in future rela-
tionships, lowered confidence, preoccupation with what others think (Leary et al.,
1998, 2001), negative emotions (Kam & Bond, 2008), and anger and depression
(Rohde-Brown & Rudestam, 2011). However, facework has the potential to soften the
blow of relational loss, alleviate negative reactions to dissolution, or deter former
spouses from progressing to the more severe outcomes associated with divorce when
used by partners during dissolution. Indeed, Doering (2010) found that individuals often
used facework in their narratives after relationship dissolution.
Consistent with risk and resilience models, behaviors that happen early in the divorce,
or even early in the marriage, can impact later outcomes between the partners. Hackney
and Ribordy (1980) found that negative emotions rose sharply for individuals during the
distress phase, and longitudinally continued throughout the divorce process. That is, the
negative emotions that emerged before the couple completed the divorce were signifi-
cant factors in the rest of the divorce process. More recently, Masheter (1997) discussed
the differences between healthy and unhealthy post-divorce relationships, with preoccu-
pation and hostility being primary qualities that differentiated those relationships. Divor-
cees who were highly preoccupied with, and hostile toward, their former spouse were
poorly adjusted to the divorce and experienced detrimental effects on their well-being
(see also Jaffe, 2011).
Divorcing couples report less constructive communication, more conflict, and more
interaction avoidance than either non-distressed or distressed couples (Christensen &
Shenk, 1991). Scholars have noted that in conflict, face concerns contribute to the way
conflict is managed, and that perceived face threats can escalate a conversation into a
conflict episode (Brew & Cairns, 2004; Cupach & Metts, 1994; Oetzel, Ting-Toomey,
Yokochi, Masumoto, & Takai, 2000). Thus, the face threats that occur during the divorce
decision challenge the partners autonomy, approval, and closeness with the former
spouse, eliciting unproductive conflict behaviors throughout the entire divorce process.
Taken together, face threats can generally be associated with negative outcomes, while
facework is associated with positive outcomes. These findings suggest that the loss of a
close, personal relationship triggers strong emotions and conflict. The emotions appear
to persist throughout the process, and may continue after the divorce.
Similarly, communication between former spouses may continue after divorce.
Graham and Edwards (2008) argued that divorce is not an end state to a relationship.
Instead, the former spouses enter into a dynamic and changing post-marital relation-
ship and state of being (Graham, 2003; Graham & Edwards, 2008). In this evolving
state, former spouses developed new disclosure and privacy rules to maintain a harmo-
nious relationship (Miller, 2009b) and negotiated co-parenting responsibilities
(Schrodt, Baxter, McBride, Braithwaite, & Fine, 2006). Positive post-divorce relation-
ships potentially demonstrate greater resiliency to divorce.
Resiliency in the post-divorce relationship

Post-divorce relationships may be dynamic as former spouses develop new types of rela-
tionships and sometimes enter into friendships. Although divorcees recognized that they
experienced stress and conflict as a result of friendship with a former spouse, they also
found the relationship supportive and beneficial (Goldsmith, 1980). Ahrons and Wallisch
(1987) classified divorced couples into five categories, ranging from friendship to the elim-
ination of all contact between the spouses. These categories seem to have an emotional
foundation. Perfect pals are described as friends who are amicable in all aspects of their
lives. Cooperative colleagues are successful as co-parents, but do not deal with one
Frisby et al. 721
another in other interpersonal aspects of their lives. Angry associates are characterized as
hostile, and limit their interactions with one another to avoid conflict. Fiery foes are
extremely hostile and experience great conflict in both the parental and personal realm.
Dissolved duos have ceased all contact with one another.
Because resiliency involves the maintenance of stable, healthy levels of functioning
(Bonanno, 2004), the ability to become perfect pals or cooperative colleagues likely
demonstrates a unique, and more perhaps more resilient, reaction to the divorce process.
In other words, such individuals are maintaining stability and healthy functioning in
post-divorce relationships. To summarize, divorce is an interpersonal event that can
be compared to other interpersonal termination events where face threat is prevalent
(Kunkel et al., 2003). Face threats in divorce have the potential to impact both parties
involved in the dissolution of the marriage, playing a role in the emotions, stress, and
type of post-divorce relationship negotiated. The emotion, stress levels, and post-
divorce relationship can lend insight into those who are more resilient following marital
termination. Thus, this study examined the following hypotheses and research questions:
H1: Divorcees will perceive greater positive face threat than negative face threat from their
former spouses in divorce.
RQ1: Will divorcees perceive greater positive or negative face support from their former
spouses in divorce?
RQ2: How will divorce initiators, non-initiators, and mutual divorce decision makers differ
in perceived face threat, face support, positive emotions, negative emotions, and stress?
H2: Face threat and facework during divorce will predict emotions and stress.
H3:Perceived face threat, facework, and emotion will predict the current relationship status
with their former spouse.
Method
Procedures
Participants were recruited using snowball sampling techniques through large lecture
classrooms, divorce support groups, Facebook divorce groups, Facebook status mes-
sages, and mass emails. Participants were instructed to contact the researcher to indicate
interest and were then sent an electronic survey.1 To assist in recall, only participants
who were divorced within two years were retained for the study. Firstly, participants
completed an electronic consent page. Secondly, participants responded to an open-
ended prompt about the divorce (i.e., Describe the conversation where you perceived
that the decision to divorce was final). Although there is the potential that this recollec-
tion may be distorted, Harvey and Fine (2006) argued that the way in which divorcees
recall, and then describe, their accounts of the divorce can both alter and shape their pres-
ent and future experiences related to the divorce. In other longitudinal studies (e.g.,
Hackney & Ribordy, 1980), the communication between couples early in the divorce
process still influenced later interactions between the partners. The survey packet also
included quantitative measures about communication behaviors that occurred during the
recalled divorce conversation (i.e., face threat, facework) and post-divorce emotion and
levels of stress.
Participants
Participants reported on their perceptions of the divorce (N 103, 34 males, 66
females, and 3 who did not report their biological sex) ranging in age from 20 to 58
(M 36.60, SD 10.66). Participants had been married an average of 9.91 years
(range 129 years, SD 8.16 years), and divorced an average of 1.05 years prior to
taking this survey (range 1 month to 2 years, SD .66 months). Of the participants,
44.7% of the divorcees had no children, followed by 23.3% who had two children,
18.4% who had one child, 9.7% who had three children, 1.9% who had four children,
and 1.9% who had six children.
Instrumentation
Role in the Divorce. Participants were asked to categorize themselves as initiators,
non-initiators, or as mutual decision makers. Participants reported that they were the
initiator of the divorce (n 51), non-initiators (n 15), or they mutually decided to
divorce (n 28), and nine participants did not report who initiated the divorce.
Face threats. Perceived face threat was measured using a scale developed by Cupach
and Carson (2002). It is a 14-item scale assessing both positive (e.g., my partners
actions strengthened the relationship between us) and negative face threats (e.g., my
partners actions took away some of my independence) on a seven-point Likert-type
scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The negative face threat
scale has been marginally reliable in previous research (Cupach & Carson, 2002). For
the purposes of this study, the scale was modified through the addition of two negative
face threat items in an attempt to produce a higher reliability (i.e., my partners actions
made me feel obligated to comply, my partners actions made me feel like I had no
control). With the addition of these two items, the positive and negative face scales
contained 10 and 6 items, respectively. See Table 1 for scale reliability, means, and
standard deviations.
Facework. Facework was assessed using a modified version of the Revised Instructional
Face Support Scale (Kerssen-Griep, Trees, & Hess, 2008). The items were measured on
an eight-item, seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from not at all (1) to very much (7)
to indicate the degree to which both positive facework (e.g., made sure that he/she
doesnt cast you in a bad light) and negative facework (e.g., left me free to choose how
to respond) was enacted. Each subscale was comprised of four items. Negative face sup-
port yielded a low reliability coefficient and could not be improved through item dele-
tion. Negative face support was used in further analyses but the results should be
interpreted with caution.
Table 1. Relationships between demographics and divorce outcomes
Variable a M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1. Marriage length
2. Time since divorce .05
3. Number of Children .71** .11
4. Positive face threat .90 42.18 14.98 .16 .05 .08
5. Negative face threat .74 19.46 7.76 .17 .06 .15 .59**
6. Negative face support .64 17.21 5.60 .01 .05 .04 .63** .58**
7. Positive face support .74 13.42 5.72 .02 .06 .01 .79** .35** .53**
8. Positive emotion .83 11,23 4.79 .14 .02 .09 .19 .24* .25* .16
9. Negative emotion .88 25.69 6.99 .01 .00 .00 .29** .39** .23** .15 .21*
10. Stress .84 24.13 8.09 .03 .07 .10 .04 .22* .08 .00 .12 .24*
Note: *p < .05, **p <. 01
723
Emotion. Emotion was assessed using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegren, 1988). The scale includes 10 negative affect
descriptors (e.g., guilty, nervous, upset) and 10 positive affect descriptors (e.g., inspired,
enthusiastic, attentive). Following McCullough, Bellah, Kilpatrick, and Johnson
(2001), participants indicated the degree to which they generally experienced this
emotion on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from very slightly (1) to extremely
(5). Three additional items (i.e., love, anger, sadness) were added following a study
by Sbarra and Ferrer (2006).
Given the use of an established scale and the theoretical expectations for the items,
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used. We adopted criteria outlined by Hu and
Bentler (1999) and Browne and Cudeck (1993), who suggest that the non-normed fit
index (NFI) and comparative fit index (CFI) should be above .90 to indicate a reason-
ably good fit, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) should be
below .08 to indicate an acceptable fit. Finally, the chi-square to degrees of freedom
ratio should be at 2:1 or less. However, NFI, CFI, and RMSEA are considered more
appropriate primary fit indices to be used when assessing model fit (Byrne, 2001). The
CFA for positive emotions revealed a poor fit to the data with approximately a 3:1
ratio, w2 151.35, p < .001, NFI .61, CFI .67, and RMSEA .15. The items were
examined and six positive emotion items were removed from the model. The CFA of
the second positive emotion model revealed an improved, and acceptable, fit to the
data with approximately a 3:1 ratio, w2 13.495, p .01, NFI .93, CFI .95, and
RMSEA .12. Thus, the final positive emotion scale included five items (i.e., strong,
inspired, active, proud, and enthusiastic).
The CFA for negative emotions revealed a poor fit to the data with approximately a
5:1 ratio, w2 230.50, p < .001, NFI .65, CFI .70, and RMSEA .18. The items
were examined and five items were removed from the model. The CFA of the second
negative emotion model revealed an improved, and acceptable, fit to the data with
approximately a 3:1 ratio, w2 44.05, p < .001, NFI .88, CFI .91, and RMSEA .14.
Thus, the final negative emotion scale included seven items (i.e., nervous, jittery, upset,
ashamed, scared, afraid, sadness).
Stress. Stress was assessed using Cohen, Kamarck, and Mermelsteins (1983) Perceived
Stress Scale. The stress scale assessed levels of stress within the past month (e.g., In the
last month, how often have you felt nervous and stressed). It is a 14-item, five-point
Likert-type scale ranging from never (0) to very often (4).
Current relationship. Ahrons and Wallischs (1987) qualitative descriptive typology

(i.e., perfect pals, cooperative colleagues, angry associates, fiery foes, dissolved duos)
was provided to the participants. They indicated which description best illustrated
their current relationship with their former spouse. The participants classified them-
selves as perfect pals (n 13, 12.6%), cooperative colleagues (n 41, 39.8%), angry
associates (n 27, 26.2%), fiery foes (n 4, 3.9%), and dissolved duos (n 17,
16.5%), and one who did not report the type of relationship they currently maintained
with their former spouse.
Frisby et al. 725
Results
Preliminary analyses
Previous research has uncovered differences in the divorce experience based on sex (e.g.,
Perilloux & Buss, 2008), relationship length (e.g., Shortt, Capaldi, Kim, & Owen, 2006),
time since the divorce (e.g., Kitson, 1982), and the number of children (e.g., Berman,
1985). Because of the associations of these demographics to dependent variables in
previous research, preliminary analyses were used determine whether these variables
should be entered as control variables. To explore sex differences, a multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted with participant sex entered as the
fixed factor and face threats, facework, emotion, and stress entered as the dependent
variables. Results indicate that there were no significant differences between the sexes,
Wilks L .96, F (1, 88) .51, p .83, Z2 .04.
Correlations between relationship length, time since the divorce, and number of children
with face threats, facework, emotion, and stress were examined. See Table 1 for correla-
tions among all variables. The time passed since the divorce, the number of children
between the divorcees, and the length of marriage were not related to any of the variables of
interest. Given the lack of significant relationships among demographics and the outcome
variables, the demographics were not entered as control variables in subsequent analyses.
Hypotheses and research questions

Hypothesis one predicted that divorcees would experience greater positive face threat
than negative face threat during divorce. A paired samples t-test revealed that there was a
significant difference in the positive and negative face threats (r .59, p < .001) expe-
rienced by divorcees, t (101) 7.53, p < .001, with divorcees reporting greater positive
face threat (M 4.19, SD 1.49) than negative face threat (M 3.24, SD 1.29).
Research question one inquired about the face support that participants perceived
their former spouses communicating during divorce. A paired samples t-test revealed
that divorcees perceived a significant difference in the positive and negative face support
(r .53, p < .001) being performed by their former spouses during the divorce, t (99)
6.62, p < .001, with the perception that former spouses enacted greater negative face
support (M 4.28, SD 1.39) than positive face support (M 3.38, SD 1.42).
Research question two inquired about the differences in perceptions of divorce based
on the role of the divorcee in the process (i.e., initiator, non-initiator, and mutual decision
maker). A MANOVA with the participants role entered as the fixed factor and positive
face threat, negative face threat, positive face support, negative face support, positive emo-
tions, negative emotions, and stress entered as outcome variables was used. Results
revealed a significant model, Wilks L .51, F (2, 82) 4.26, p .001, Zp2 .29. There
were no significant differences in positive face threat, F (2, 82) 1.56, p .22, Zp2 .04,
negative face support F (2, 82) 1.66, p .20, Zp2 .04, or in stress, F (2, 82) .67,
p .51, Zp2 .02.
Conversely, the role a divorcee played in the divorce process contributed to
significantly different perceptions of negative face threat, F (2, 82) 3.51, p .03,
Zp2 .08, positive face support, F (2, 82) 6.62, p < .01, Zp2 .14, positive emotions,
Table 2. Multivariate analysis of variance assessing differences in the divorcee role
Mean, SD
Variable F (df) p Initiator Non-initiator Mutual decision
Positive face threat 1.56 (2,82) .22 4.43, 1.70 4.30, 1.39 3.77, 1.25
Positive face support 6.62 (2, 82) .00 2.87, 1.45 3.69, 1.66 4.08, 1.06
Negative face threat 3.51 (2,82) .03 3.03, 1.34 4.08, .96 3.15, 1.25
Negative face support 1.66 (2, 82) .20 4.43, 1.36 3.62, 1.57 4.34, 1.50
Positive emotions 9.14 (2, 82) .00 2.44, 1.03 1.31, .41 2.43, .74
Negative emotions 4.74 (2, 82) .01 3.34, .91 4.05, .50 3.27, .71
Stress .67 (2, 82) .51 1.65, .67 1.84, .40 1.77, .45
F (2, 82) 9.14, p < .01, Zp2 .19, and negative emotions, F (2, 82) 4.74, p .01,
Zp2 .11. Post hoc analyses revealed that non-initiators experienced significantly
greater negative face threat than those who were initiators, but those who mutually
decided to divorce did not significantly differ from either initiators or non-initiators.
Mutual decision makers experienced significantly greater positive face support than
those who were initiators, but non-initiators did not significantly differ from initiators
or mutual decision makers. Initiators and mutual decision makers experienced signif-
icantly greater positive emotion than non-initiators. Lastly, non-initiators experienced
significantly greater negative emotion than initiators or mutual decision makers. The
MANOVA results for research question two are shown in Table 2.
Hypothesis two examined the ability of face threats and face support to predict
emotions and stress. Three multiple regressions were used with positive face threat,
negative face threat, positive face support, and negative face support entered as
predictors of positive emotions, stress, and negative emotions. The regression model
predicting positive emotions was not significant, F (94) 1.62, p > .01. The regression
model predicting stress was not significant, F (94) 1.36, p > .01. The regression model
predicting negative emotions was significant, F (97) 4.75, p < .01, and accounted for
17% of the variance. The only significant predictor of negative emotions was negative
face threats (b .33, p < .01).
Hypothesis three predicted that face threat, face support, and emotion would predict
the current relationship status with the former spouse. A discriminant analysis with the
relationship type as the dependent variable, and face threats, facework, and emotion as
independent variables, indicated that this combination of variables could accurately
predict type of relationship (i.e., perfect pals, cooperative colleagues, angry associates,
fiery foes, and dissolved duos) among former spouses 52.1% of the time [L .51, w2
(24, N 103) 58.43, p < .001]. There was one significant discriminant function
(eigenvalue .68), that accounted for 81.6% of the variance, and included positive face
threat (.85, p < .01) and positive face support (.85, p < .01). Specifically, the dis-
criminant function was most accurate in classifying cooperative colleagues (89.5%
accuracy), angry associates (54.2% accuracy), and dissolved duos (12.5% accuracy).
That is, positive face threat and positive face support assist in correctly classifying
participants into the types of post-divorce relationships 52.1% of the time.
Frisby et al. 727
Discussion
This study revealed a pattern in which facework and face threat communication during
marital-ending conversations were associated with outcomes following divorce. It also
identified divorcees on a recognizable continuum ranging from more positive and resi-
lient outcomes (i.e., mutual decision makers) to more negative and vulnerable outcomes
(i.e., non-initiator), with initiators situated between the two. Contrary to expectations, the
communicative and emotion variables were not related to participants stress levels, sug-
gesting that face threats, face support, and emotions are not a source of stress following
divorce, or that other factors may be more fundamentally integrated and in need of explo-
ration. Further, the combination of face threats, facework, and emotions correctly clas-
sified partners over 50% of the time into one of five post-divorce couple types, ranging
from perfect pals to dissolved duos. These results can be explained in several ways, sug-
gest numerous avenues for additional research on post-divorce relationships, and high-
light implications for divorcees.
Both parties in dissolution are prone to experience face threat. Kunkel et al. (2003)
suggested that those who initiate the decision are concerned about being perceived as
insensitive or uncaring, while receivers of the dissolution message are concerned about
gaining approval, liking, closeness, and being perceived as relationally competent. It was
expected that the decision to divorce may be even more face threatening because of the
marital connection that differentiates spouses from dating romantic partners (Cupach &
Metts, 1986). Although both positive and negative face threats occurred, positive face
threats were most salient. Leary et al. (1998) explained that relational devaluation is a
significant cause of hurt in interpersonal rejection. Devaluing the relationship suggests
lack of approval for the partner, which is threatening to positive face. Young, Paxman,
Koehring, and Anderson (2008) reported that rejection messages in unrequited love were
also perceived as face threatening. Taken together, feelings of rejection and unrequited
love may threaten a partners perceived likeability, relational competence, and closeness
needs, all of which comprise the positive face of a marital partner.
Although divorce is a highly face-threatening event, following the conceptual models
of risk and resilience, we must recognize that all divorces are not the same. For example,
Erbert and Floyds (2004) research on trait-like face needs may help to explain this. If,
indeed, face needs are a trait-like construct linked to perceptions of facework, then this
trait may affect individuals interpretations of face-threatening events such as divorce.
Secondly, the variance in face threat may also be explained by the motivation for the
divorce. Relationships dissolve for a variety of reasons (e.g., infidelity, ineffective inter-
personal communication) and previous research has found that perceived face threat dif-
fers by reason (Frisby, Booth-Butterfield, & Malachowski, 2010). Thus, the reason for
divorcing may differentially threaten positive and negative face, and should be examined
in future research.
Non-initiators of the divorce experienced greater negative face threat and greater neg-
ative emotion. Conversely, mutual decision makers and initiators of divorce emerged as
most likely to be resilient, experiencing positive outcomes including greater positive
emotions and less negative emotions. Sprecher and Felmlee (1997) reported that an
imbalance of power is evident in decision making. That is, non-initiators in the divorce
may perceive that they are powerless in the decision process, and may become painfully
aware that their partner is less interested in that relationship. Gray and Silver (1990)
noted that responses to termination depend on the partners level of control in the break
up. Non-initiators lack this control, and likely experience threats to negative face.
Despite suggestions to include emotion in face threat and facework research (Craig,
Tracy, & Spisak, 1986; Locher & Watts, 2005; Metts, 1992), few studies have linked
face threat to emotion. Recently, Kennedy-Lightsey (2010) found that positive face
threat elicited more negative emotional responses, including anger and frustration. In the
current study, and consistent with predictions, face threats were also related to negative
emotions, suggesting that the more face threatening the divorce, the more negative the
emotional reactions. Further, the non-initiator of the divorce experienced even greater
negative face threat and greater negative emotion.
Like Kennedy-Lightsey (2010), most research has focused on negative emotional
responses to face threat (e.g., Cupach & Carson, 2002; Zhang & Stafford, 2008). How-
ever, Tashiro and Frazier (2003) found that some individuals experience positive emo-
tions in response to divorce. In our study negative face threats were significantly and
negatively related to positive emotions. That is, when negative face threats are low more
positive emotions occur. One of the positive outcomes of divorce suggested by Tashiro
and Frazier was personal growth and freedom. This finding may be indicative of low
negative face threat, or gaining autonomy and independence from the relationship, as
well as experiencing a positive emotional reaction to the divorce. These findings support
the need to further incorporate emotion into face threat and facework research.
Our study did not find face threats, facework, or emotion to be associated with
divorcees stress levels. Plummer and Koch-Hattem (1986) found that other factors, such
as changes in the social network, income, conflict, and external family stressors, such as
a child leaving home, illness, or relocation, besides the loss of the relationship through
divorce, were associated with heightened stress levels. These life changes are significant,
and can occur regardless of the role a former spouse played in the decision to divorce.
Similarly, partners may experience turbulent emotions as they experience feelings of
freedom then guilt, happiness then regret, missing the partner then elation in a new
relationship, and other contradictory experiences and dialectical tensions due to
divorce. Thus, despite the appearance that a mutual decision may be most beneficial,
partners who engage in bilateral decisions are still as likely to experience some nega-
tive outcomes, including stress.
Importantly, this study extends research on face threats and facework by integrating
those facets within a risk/resiliency model. It identifies the explanatory potential for
these communicative practices as contextual indicators of resiliency and post-divorce
relational negotiation. Positive face threats and positive face support were significant
in classifying participants into the five post-divorce couple types approximately 52%
of the time. At first glance this percentage may seem low; however, with five possible
classifications the individuals could be correctly classified 20% of the time by chance.
Thus, positive face threat, positive facework, and emotion increased the predictive abil-
ities by just over 30%. Importantly, it appears that the communication which occurs dur-
ing the conversation where partners decide to divorce is informative for understanding,
and making predictions about, the post-divorce relationship. When former spouses pay
Frisby et al. 729
attention to positive face by reducing positive threats and engaging in positive face
support, the post-divorce outcomes are more positive.
Ours is not the only study to find such impact. Huston (2009) reviewed and sum-
marized a 13-year longitudinal study and found that communication between two
individuals as early as courtship could predict later communication and relationship
success. This finding fits with the enduring dynamics model (Caughlin & Huston,
2006), which posits that the dynamics present early in marriage persist throughout the
relationship lifespan. Similarly, Isaacs and Leon (1988) found that post-termination
communication patterns were often continuations of the communicative patterns that
happen prior to termination, especially for conflict patterns. In our study, communica-
tion patterns that developed during courtship and marriage may have continued,
explaining the face-threatening and face-supporting communication between former
spouses during the divorce. The communication that occurred during the marriage may
also explain the stress levels and post-divorce relationship. Future research should
examine communication patterns that happened during marriage as an alternative
explanation for post-divorce outcomes.
Implications
When couples are in distress, it is not uncommon for them to seek help. In fact, Renick,
Blumberg, and Markman (1992) argued that most couples do not seek treatment until
significant relational problems are already occurring. That is, these couples are already at
a significant risk for divorce. Prior clinical efforts have focused on a wide variety of
communication skills (Hawkins, Blanchard, Baldwin, & Fawcett, 2008), including
expressing feelings, active listening, constructive/destructive communication, problem
solving, team-building, re-evaluating beliefs, and conflict management (Markman, Floyd,
Stanley, & Storaasli, 1988; Renick et al., 1992). However, facework has been largely
ignored in relational education courses. It is possible that facework operates at a different
level than each of the communication skills included in educational programs. Specifi-
cally, facework may be a concept that subsumes individual skills, such that effective lis-
tening, constructive communication, problem solving, and conflict management are
beneficial together because they communicate face support to the spouse. Facework skills
may serve a dual function, improving communication to prevent divorce or communica-
tion that will make the divorce decision and process go more smoothly. Promoting face-
supporting communication can help to alleviate the negative outcomes associated with
divorce and, in fact, enhance positive outcomes, including the development of positive
post-divorce relationships.
Limitations
The findings of this study are framed by inherent limitations. Firstly, a continuing
problem in face threat and facework research is the low reliability of negative face threat
(e.g., Cupach & Carson, 2002; Zhang & Stafford, 2008). Negative face threat may be
more difficult to measure due to varying perceptions of autonomy, freedom, and
imposition. Adding additional items in the current studies did slightly improve the
reliability; however, the measure should continue to be refined. Secondly, the data
are retrospective, cross-sectional, and self-report, so the results do not support causal
relationships. Although Harvey and Fine (2006) argue for the value of divorcees percep-
tions as important research tools, it is important to reduce recall error in divorce
research without using intrusive methods during the traumatic event. Even if partici-
pants ability to recall the event is accurate, they may strategically choose to report
on the event in a way that would protect their own face. For example, they may claim
that the divorce was a mutual decision when in fact they were compliant, coerced, or
gave up on the marriage. The sample size in this study was small (N 103) due to dif-
ficulty in recruiting divorced individuals to recall a sensitive topic. However, a
strength of this study is the examination of adults who have been married and divorced,
rather than dating, and college couples. Finally, a question about previous relationship
education or counseling could have been added to the survey. Thus, the results should
be interpreted with caution.
Conclusion
Face threats and facework were indeed contributing factors in individual well-being and
relational (re)definition. The complex divorce process is fraught with opportunities to
threaten, or support, partners face needs, which in turn, create significant turning points
that allow divorcees to evolve as post-marital relational partners. Insight into this
ongoing, dynamic process provides a deeper understanding of those who are evolving
in a more resilient way. Enhancing resilient responses to a traumatic and face-
threatening life event is essential to further development of clinical, psychological, and
mandated counseling and mediation processes.
Acknowledgement
A version of this manuscript was presented at the 2011 annual meeting of the International Com-
munication Association.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-
for-profit sectors.
Note
1. There were 282 surveys distributed. Of the 282, 110 surveys were returned for a 39% response
rate. Only participants who had been divorced within the past two years were retained for the
study, resulting in seven eliminated cases (N 103).
References
Afifi, T. D., & Hamrick, K. (2006). Communication processes that promote risk and resiliency in
postdivorce families. In M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relation-
ship dissolution (pp. 435-456). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Afifi, T. D., & Keith, S. (2004). A risk and resiliency model of ambiguous loss in postdivorce
stepfamilies. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 65-98.
Frisby et al. 731
Afifi, T. D., & Nussbaum, J. (2006). Stress and adaptation theories: Families across the lifespan. In
D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple
perspectives (pp. 276-292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ahrons, C. R., & Wallisch, L. S. (1987). The relationship between former spouses. In D. Perlman &
S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships (pp. 269-296). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 62, 1269-1287.
Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 72, 650-666.
Archer, J., & Fisher, H. (2008). Bereavement and reactions to romantic rejection: A psychobiolo-
gical perspective. In M. S. Stroebe, R. O. Hansson, H. Schut & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of
bereavement research and practice (pp. 349-371). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Berman, W. H. (1985). Continued attachment after legal divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 6,
375-392.
Bevvino, D. L., & Sharkin, B. S. (2003). Divorce adjustment as a function of finding meaning and
gender differences. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 39, 81-97.
Boelen, P. A., & Reijntjes, A. (2009). Negative cognitions in emotional problems following
romantic relationship break-ups. Stress and Health, 25, 11-19.
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human
capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59, 20-28.
Bonanno, G. A., Wortman, C. B., Lehman, D. R., Tweed, R. G., Haring, M., Sonnega, J., . . .
Nesse, R. M. (2002). Resilience to loss and chronic grief: A prospective study from preloss
to 18-months postloss. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1150-1164.
Bonanno, G. A., Wortman, C. B., & Nesse, R. M. (2004). Prospective patterns of resilience and
maladjustment during widowhood. Psychology & Aging, 19, 260-270.
Braver, S. L., Shapiro, J. R., & Goodman, M. R. (2006). Consequences of divorce for parents. In
M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp.
435-456). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Brew, F. P., & Cairns, D. R. (2004). Styles of managing interpersonal workplace conflict in rela-
tion to status and face concern: A study with Anglos and Chinese. The International Journal of
Conflict Management, 15, 27-56.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen &
J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative
approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal
of Testing, 1, 55-86.
Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (2006). The affective structure of marriage. In A. L. Vangelisti &
D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 131-155). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, J., & George, R. A. (2005). Cultivating resilience in children from divorced families. Family
Journal, 13, 452-455.
Christensen, A., & Shenk, J. L. (1991). Communication, conflict, and psychological distance in
nondistressed, clinic, and divorcing couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
59, 458-463.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Craig, R. T., Tracy, K., & Spisak, F. (1986). The discourse of requests: Assessment of a politeness
approach. Human Communication Research, 12, 437-468.
Cupach, W. R., & Carson, C. L. (2002). Characteristics and consequences of interpersonal com-
plaints associated with perceived face threat. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19,
443-462.
Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1986). Accounts of relational dissolution: A comparison of marital
and non-marital relationships. Communication Monographs, 53, 311-334.
Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cutrona, C. E., & Suhr, J. A. (1994). Social support communication in the context of marriage: An
analysis of couples supportive interactions. In B. R. Burleson, T. L. Albrecht & I. G. Sarason
(Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and commu-
nity (pp. 113-135). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deater-Deckard, K., & Dunn, J. (1999). Multiple risks and adjustment in young children growing
up in different family settings: A British community study of stepparent, single mother, and
nondivorced families. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting, and
remarriage: A risk and resiliency perspective (pp. 47-65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Doering, J. (2010). Face, accounts, and schemes in the context of relationship breakups. Symbolic
Interaction, 33, 71-95.
Doohan, E. M., Carrere, S., & Riggs, M. L. (2010). Using relational stories to predict the trajectory
toward marital dissolution: The oral history interview and spousal feelings of flooding, lone-
liness, and depression. Journal of Family Communication, 10, 57-77.
Erbert, L. A., & Floyd, K. (2004). Affectionate expressions as face-threatening acts: Receiver
assessments. Communication Studies, 55, 254-270.
Frazier, P. A., & Cook, S. W. (1993). Correlates of distress following heterosexual relationship
dissolution. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 55-67.
Frisby, B. N., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Malachowski, C. C. (2010). Perceived face threats and per-
ceived facework in romantic relationship dissolution episodes. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Golby, B. J., & Bretherton, I. (1999). Resilience in postdivorce motherchild relationships. In H. I.
McCubbin, E. A. Thompson, A. I. Thompson & J. A. Futrell, (Eds.), The dynamics of resilient
families (pp. 237-269). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Goldsmith, J. (1980). Relationships between former spouses: Descriptive findings. Journal of
Divorce, 4, 1-20.
Graham, E. E. (2003). Dialectical contradictions in postmarital relationships. The Journal of Fam-
ily Communication, 3, 193-214.
Graham, E. E., & Edwards, A. P. (2008). A separate togetherness: Dialectical tensions and shadow
realities in post-marital relationships. In L. Arnold (Ed.), Research in family communication
(pp. 90-98). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gray, J. D., & Silver, R. C. (1990). Opposite sides of the same coin: Former spouses divergent
perspectives in coping with their divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
1180-1191.
Frisby et al. 733
Gregson, J., & Ceynar, M. L. (2009). Finding me again: Womens postdivorce identity shifts.
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 50, 564-582.
Hackney, G. R., & Ribordy, S. C. (1980). An empirical investigation of emotional reactions to
divorce. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 105-110.
Harvey, J. H., & Fine, M. A. (2006). Social construction of accounts in the process of relationship
termination. In M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship
dissolution (pp. 189-200). New York: Routledge.
Hawkins, A. J., Blanchard, V. L., Baldwin, S. A., & Fawcett, E. B. (2008). Does marriage and
relationship education work? A meta-analytic study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 76, 723-734.
Holtgraves, T. (2001). Politeness. In W.P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.) The new handbook of
language and social psychology. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Huston, T. L. (2009). Whats love got to do with it? Why some marriages succeed and others fail.
Personal Relationships, 16, 301-327.
Isaacs, M. B., & Leon, G. (1988). Divorce, disputation, and discussion: Communication styles
among recently separated spouses. Journal of Family Psychology, 1, 298-311.
Jaffe, E. (2011) The complicated psychology of revenge. Observer, 24, 15-18.
Kam, C. C., & Bond, M. H. (2008). Role of emotions and behavioural responses in mediating
the impact of face loss on relationship deterioration: Are Chinese more face-sensitive then
Americans? Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 175-184.
Kennedy-Lightsey, C. D. (2010). Recognizing contributions: Face-support and face-threat influ-
ences students emotional and communicative responses. Communication Research Reports,
27, 20-29.
Kerssen-Griep, J., Trees, A. R., & Hess, J. A. (2008). Attentive facework during instructional feed-
back: Key to perceiving mentorship and an optimal learning environment. Communication
Education, 57, 312-332.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Kennedy, S., Malkoff, S., Fisher, L., Speicher, C. E., & Glaser, R. (1988).
Marital discord and immunity in males. Psychosomatic Medicine, 50, 213-229.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological
Bulletin, 127, 472-503.
Kincaid, S. B., & Caldwell, R. A. (1991). Initiator status, family support, and adjustment to marital
separation: A test of an interaction hypothesis. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 79-88.
Kitson, G. C. (1982) Attachment to the spouse in divorce: A scale and its application. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 44, 379-393.
Kunkel, A. D., Wilson, S. R., Olufowote, J., & Robson, S. (2003). Identity implications of influ-
ence goals: Initiating, intensifying, and ending romantic relationships. Western Journal of
Communication, 67, 382-412.
Leary, M. R., Koch, E. J., & Hechenbleikner, N. R. (2001). Emotional responses to interpersonal
rejection. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection. New York: Oxford Press.
Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998). The causes, phenomenology,
and consequences of hurt feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1225-1237.
Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness
Research: Language, Behavior, Culture, 1, 9-33.
Markman, H. J., Floyd, F. J., Stanley, S. M., & Storaasli, R. D. (1988). Prevention of marital distress:
A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 210-217.
Masheter, C. (1997). Healthy and unhealthy friendship and hostility between ex-spouses. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 59, 463-475.
McCullough, M. E., Bellah, C. G., Kilpatrick, S. D., & Johnson, J. L. (2001). Vengefulness: Rela-
tionships with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the big five. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 601-610.
McKenry, P. C., & Price, S. J. (1991). Alternatives for support: Life after divorce A literature
review. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 15, 1-19.
Metts, S. (1992). The language of disengagement: A face-management perspective. In T. L.
Orbuch (Ed.), Close relationship loss: Theoretical perspectives. New York: Springer.
Miller, A. E. (2009a). Face concerns and facework strategies in maintaining postdivorce coparent-
ing and dating relationships. Southern Communication Journal, 74, 157-173.
Miller, A. E. (2009b). Revealing and concealing postmarital dating information: Divorced
coparents privacy rule development and boundary coordination processes. Journal of Family
Communication, 9, 135-149.
Mulholland, D. J., Watt, N. F., Philpott, A., & Sarlin, N. (1991). Academic performance in children
of divorce: Psychological resilience and vulnerability. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biologi-
cal Processes, 54, 268-280.
Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., Yokochi, Y., Masumoto, T., & Takai, J. (2000). A typology of
behaviors in conflicts with best friends and relative strangers. Communication Quarterly, 48,
397-419.
Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Breaking up romantic relationships: Costs experienced and
coping strategies deployed. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 164-181.
Plummer, L., & Koch-Hattem, A. (1986). Family stress and adjustment to divorce. Family
Relations, 35, 523-529.
Renick, M. J., Blumberg, S. L., & Markman, H. J. (1992). The Prevention and Relationship
Education Program (PREP): An empirically based preventative intervention program for cou-
ples. Family Relations, 41, 141-147.
Rohde-Brown, J., & Rudestam, K. (2011). The role of forgiveness in divorce adjustment and the
impact of affect. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 52, 109-124.
Sbarra, D. A., & Ferrer, E. (2006). The structure and process of emotional experience following
nonmarital relationship dissolution: Dynamic factor analysis of love, anger, and sadness. Emo-
tion, 6, 224-238.
Schrodt, P., Baxter, L. A., McBride, C. M., Braithwaite, D. O., & Fine, M. A. (2006). The divorce
decree, communication, and the structuration of coparenting relationships in stepfamilies.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 741-759.
Seery, M., Holman, D., Alison, E., & Silver, R. (2010). Whatever does not kill us: Cumulative life-
time adversity, vulnerability, and resilience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99,
1025-1041.
Shortt, J. W., Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Owen, L. D. (2006). Relationship separation for
young, at-risk couples: Prediction from dyadic aggression. Journal of Family Psychology,
20, 624-631.
Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (1997). The balance of power in romantic heterosexual couples over
time from his and her perspectives. Sex Roles, 37, 361-379.
Frisby et al. 735
Tashiro, T., & Frazier, P. (2003). Ill never be in a relationship like that again: Personal growth
following romantic relationship breakups. Personal Relationships, 10, 113-128.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002, July). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce,
and remarriage in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_
23/sr23_028.pdf.
Thuen, F., & Eikeland, O. (1998). Social support among males and females after marital disruption.
Psychology, Health & Medicine, 3, 315-327.
Waite, L. J., Luo, Y., & Lewin, A. C. (2009). Marital happiness and marital stability: Consequences
for psychological well-being. Social Science Research, 38, 201-212.
Walsh, F. (2002). A family resilience framework: Innovative practice implications. Family
Relations, 51, 130-137.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegren, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 1063-1070.
Young, S. L., Paxman, C. G., Koehring, C. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2008). The application of a
facework model of disengagement to unrequited love. Communication Research Reports,
25, 56-66.
Zhang, S., & Stafford, L. (2008). Perceived face threat of honest but hurtful evaluative messages in
romantic relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 72, 19-39.

Face and Resilience in Divorce

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Face and Resilience in Divorce

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Social and Personal

Face and resilience in divorce: The impact on emotions, stress, and

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - Aug 28, 2012

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Apr 18, 2012

Journal of Social and

emotions, stress, and DOI: 10.1177/0265407512443452

Brandi N. Frisby1, Melanie Booth-Butterfield2,

Face and facework in divorce

Roles in divorce and resiliency

Facework and resiliency in divorce outcomes

Resiliency in the post-divorce relationship

Current relationship. Ahrons and Wallischs (1987) qualitative descriptive typology

Hypotheses and research questions

Table 2. Multivariate analysis of variance assessing differences in the divorcee role

Variable F (df) p Initiator Non-initiator Mutual decision

You might also like