Background: Marital dissolution is known to be among the most stressful life events with long-reaching negative consequences on individuals' lives. A limitation in research to date is that most studies have focused on the impact of marital disruption on well-being outcomes in younger adults. Furthermore, although population-based studies on divorce document a broad range of negative effects, more fine-grained analyses reveal a large heterogeneity in people's adjustment, which is still not well understood. Objective: The aim was to explore trajectories of psychological adaptation to marital breakup after a long-term marriage, and to examine variables accounting for recovery or chronicity in terms of intrapersonal resources (personality, trait resilience, and personal growth), relationship variables (satisfaction with ex-relationship, length of marriage, and time since divorce), and sociodemographic variables (age, gender, and financial situation). Methods: Latent transition analysis is used to examine the course of psychological adaptation (i.e., depressive symptoms, life satisfaction, hopelessness, mourning, and subjective health) to divorce over 2 years among 5 profiles of 308 divorcees (mean age: 55.6 years; average duration of former marriage: 23.62 years). We present two larger groups of individuals, one of which adapted very well (‘resilients', 29%) and the other quite well (‘average copers', 49%), as well as three groups with major difficulties (‘vulnerables', 6%; ‘malcontents', 12%, and ‘resigned', 4%). In a second step, the differences between transition patterns were explored on the basis of the distal variables (i.e., intrapersonal resources, relationship variables, and sociodemographics). Results: Although the probability of upward changes was higher for those individuals with lower adaptation at time point 1, only a small number of individuals made an upward change from the maladapted to the well-adapted groups throughout the 2 years. The groups of copers and resilients remained stable in their psychological adaptation. The most consistent results related to upward changes were intrapersonal resources, namely the NEO personality traits and trait resilience. Conclusion: The majority of individuals divorcing after a long-term marriage adapt successfully over time. Adaptation trajectories depend primarily on intrapersonal resources. However, a minority of divorcees exhibit enduring difficulties. Knowledge about the diversity of these trajectories of vulnerability could be of great help for designing psychological interventions to better tackle this critical life event.

Keywords:
Psychological adaptation, Long-term marriage, Resilience, Middle and old age, Resources, Latent transition analysis, Personality, Divorce
1.
Brown A, Jones JM: Separation, divorce linked to sharply lower well-being. Gallup, 2012. http://www.gallup.com/poll/154001/Separation-Divorce-Linked-Sharply-Lower-Wellbeing.aspx (accessed June 4, 2015).
2.
Amato PR: Research on divorce: continuing trends and new developments. J Marriage Fam 2010;72:650-666.
3.
Clark AE, Georgellis Y: Back to baseline in Britain: adaptation in the British household panel survey. Economia 2013;80:496-512.
4.
Bonanno GA: Loss, trauma, and human resilience: have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? Am Psychol 2004;59:20-28.
5.
Johnson DR, Wu J: An empirical test of crisis, social selection, and role explanations of the relationship between marital disruption and psychological distress: a pooled time-series analysis of four-wave panel data. J Marriage Fam 2002;64:211-224.
6.
Perrig-Chiello P, Hutchison S, Morselli D: Patterns of psychological adaptation to divorce after a long-term marriage. J Soc Pers Relat 2015;32:386-405.
7.
Brown SL, Lin IF: The gray divorce revolution: rising divorce among middle-aged and older adults, 1990-2010. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2012;67B:731-741.
8.
Swiss Federal Office of Statistics: Durchschnittliche Ehedauer bei der Scheidung. Bern, 2014. http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/01/06/blank/key/06/04.html (accessed August 8, 2015).
9.
Wang H, Amato PR: Predictors of divorce adjustment: stressors, resources, and definitions. J Marriage Fam 2000;62:655-668.
10.
Pudrovska T, Carr D: Psychological adjustment to divorce and widowhood in mid- and later life: do coping strategies and personality protect against psychological distress? Adv Life Course Res 2008;13:283-317.
11.
Schoenborn CA: Marital status and health: United States, 1999-2002. Adv Data 2004;15:1-32.
12.
Bookwala J, Marshall KI, Manning SW: Who needs a friend? Marital status transitions and physical health outcomes in later life. Health Psychol 2014;33:505-515.
13.
Bonanno GA, Mancini AD: The human capacity to thrive in the face of potential trauma. Pediatrics 2008;121:369-375.
14.
Hetherington EM: Intimate pathways: changing patterns in close personal relationships across time. Fam Relat 2003;52:318-331.
15.
Mancini AD, Bonanno GA, Clark AE: Stepping off the hedonic treadmill: individual differences in response to major life events. J Individ Differ 2011;32:144-152.
16.
Infurna FJ, Luthar SS: Resilience to major life stressors is not as common as thought. Perspect Psychol Sci, in press.
17.
Amato PR: The consequences of divorce for adults and children. J Marriage Fam 2000;62:1269-1287.
18.
Braver SL, Shapiro JR, Goodman M: The consequences of divorce for parents; in Fine MA, Harvey JH (eds): Handbook of Divorce and Relationship Dissolution. New Jersey, Erlbaum, 2006, pp 313-337.
19.
Amato PR, Hohmann-Marriott B: A comparison of high- and low-distress marriages that end in divorce. J Marriage Fam 2007;69:621-638.
20.
Waite LJ, Luo Y, Lewin AC: Marital happiness and marital stability: consequences for psychological well-being. Soc Sci Res 2009;38:201-212.
21.
Ong AD, Bergeman C, Bisconti TL, Wallace KA: Psychological resilience, positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life. J Pers Soc Psychol 2006;91:730-749.
22.
Tashiro T, Frazier P: ‘I'll never be in a relationship like that again': personal growth following romantic relationship breakups. Pers Relatsh 2003;10:113-128.
23.
Tedeschi RG, Park CL, Calhoun LG: Posttraumatic Growth: Positive Changes in the Aftermath of Crisis. Mahwah, Erlbaum, 1998.
24.
Luhmann M, Hofmann W, Eid M, Lucas RE: Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: a meta-analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 2012;102:592-615.
25.
Schumacher J: SWLS - satisfaction with life scale; in Schumacher J, Klaiberg A, Brähler E (eds): Diagnostische Verfahren zu Lebensqualität und Wohlbefinden. Göttingen, Hogrefe, 2003, pp 305-309.
26.
Hautzinger M, Bailer M: Allgemeine Depressions Skala. Manual. Göttingen, Beltz Test GmbH, 1993.
27.
Krampen G: Skalen zur Erfassung von Hoffnungslosigkeit (H-Skalen). Deutsche Bearbeitung und Weiterentwicklung der H-Skala von Aaron T. Beck. Handanweisung. Göttingen, Hogrefe, 1994.
28.
Rammstedt B, John OP: Measuring personality in one minute or less: a 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. J Res Pers 2007;41:203-212.
29.
Schumacher J, Leppert K, Gunzelmann T, Strauss B, Brähler E: The resilience scale - a questionnaire to assess resilience as a personality characteristic. Z Klin Psychol Psychiatr Psychother 2005;53:16-39.
30.
Maercker A, Langner R: Persönliche Reifung durch Belastungen und Traumata: Ein Vergleich zweier Fragebogen zur Erfassung selbstwahrgenommener Reifung nach traumatischen Erlebnissen. Diagnostica 2001;47:153-162.
31.
Nylund KL, Asparouhov T, Muthen BO: Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo simulation study. Struct Equ Modeling 2007;14:535-569.
32.
Lanza ST, Tan X, Bray BC: Latent class analysis with distal outcomes: a flexible model-based approach. Struct Equ Modeling 2013;20:1-26.
33.
Clark S, Muthén B: Relating latent class analysis results to variables not included in the analysis, 2009. Unpublished paper. http://www.statmodel.com/download/relatinglca.pdf (accessed August 15, 2015).
34.
Nylund-Gibson K, Grimm R, Quirk M, Furlong M: A latent transition mixture model using the three-step specification. Struct Equ Modeling 2014;21:439-454.
35.
Asparouhov T, Muthén B: Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: a 3-step approach using Mplus: Mplus Web Notes No 15, 2013. https://www.statmodel.com/download/webnotes/webnote15.pdf (accessed September 4, 2015).
36.
Hallquist M, Wiley J: MplusAutomation: automating Mplus model estimation and interpretation. R package version 0.6-3, 2014. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MplusAutomation/index.html (accessed August 20, 2015).
37.
Hipp JR, Bauer DJ: Local solutions in the estimation of growth mixture models. Psychol Methods 2006;11:36-53.
38.
Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, Erlbaum, 1988, ed 2.
39.
Hamarat E, Thompson D, Steele D, Matheny K, Simons C: Age differences in coping resources and satisfaction with life among middle-aged, young-old, and oldest-old adults. J Genet Psychol 2002;163:360-367.
40.
Knox D, Corte U: ‘Work it out/see a counselor': advice from spouses in the separation process. J Divorce Remarriage 2007;48:79-90.
41.
Windle G, Bennett KM, Noyes J: A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health Qual life Outcomes 2011;9:1-18.
42.
Lamela D, Figueiredo B, Bastos A, Martins H: Psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the posttraumatic growth inventory short form among divorced adults. Eur J Psychol Assess 2014;30:3-14.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.