Separation and divorce entail the dissolution of a primary attachment bond of adulthood and often represents a life transition neither anticipated or desired. As practitioners we are aware of the distress and mental health consequences for our clients and families, and research clearly demonstrates the risk of mental health consequences. However, these are global data focussing on average effects and we also know that some more easily manage this transition. What makes the difference?
A Study to Explore this Question.
Authors Guzmán‐González et. al. (2025) recognised that those who separate and divorce are not an undifferentiated group and ‘beneath these average effects lies a spectrum of responses and coping strategies that have often been neglected in the literature.’ Using a wide range of indicators, the authors had two goals; to identify the profile of psychological adjustment to divorce and separation and compare these to attachment constructs, sociodemographic factors, and divorce‐related variables.
938 separated or divorced participants completed a range of measures of psychological adaptation and mental health and well-being.
What Did They Find?
Five profiles were identified ranging from good to poor adaptation. 59% of participants, across two profiles showed moderate to high levels of psychological adjustment, while 41% over three profiles exhibited moderate to severe difficulties.
The results were found to be consistent with attachment theory and previous research showing that those with higher attachment insecurity experienced more difficulty managing relational loss and were more likely to experience severe and prolonged distress. This was explained as a function of less adaptive coping strategies.
Forgiveness of the previous partner was more likely to be found among the resilient and recovery profiles than the more distressed groups. Forgiveness plays a key role in adaptive coping by reducing resentment, anger and rumination and allowing a reworked personal narrative that integrates separation in a more positive way.
By contrast, those with poorer emotional regulation abilities were more likely to belong to profiles with extreme distress and the worst psychological adjustment.
Demographic profiles were more mixed, with women more likely to belong to the recovery profile, perhaps reflecting their greater reliance on close social networks and emotion-focussed coping strategies both of which support recovery following initial distress.
Those who initiated separation were more like to belong to the recovery profile, which was explained as due to a greater preparation and sense of control over the process.
Time is also a key variable with the longer the separation period the more likely a person is to fit within the resilient or recovery profile.
In summary the results showed that while separation does initially produce a higher risk of negative outcomes this is time limited with only a small group experiencing chronic problems.
In Conclusion
These results are congruent with our clinical experience. However, they do remind us not to treat separation as a singular event but to fully assess each presentation. Support through early stages with a focus on strengthening social networks, developing emotional regulation capacity and exploring the appropriate place of forgiveness is likely to be helpful. For those who do not recover, thorough exploration of longer-term mental health struggles that predate and underpin this transition is indicated.
Guzmán‐González, M., Gómez, F. Lafontaine, M., Tay‐Karapas, K., Profiles of Psychological Adjustment to Divorce and Separation: Associations with Attachment Insecurity, Forgiveness of the Former Partner, and Emotion Regulation Difficulties
©Copyright Bower Place Pty. Ltd. 2025
