Content uploaded by Maria Pilar Sánchez-López
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maria Pilar Sánchez-López
Content may be subject to copyright.
IMPACT ON PERSONALITY LOSS OR SEPARATION
FROM LOVED ONES
VIOLETA CARDENAL and M. PILAR SA
´NCHEZ-LO
´PEZ
Department of Personality, Assessment, and Psychological Treatments II,
Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
MARGARITA ORTIZ-TALLO
Department de Personality, Assessment, and Psychological Treatments,
University of M
aalaga, M
aalaga, Spain
The purpose of this work was twofold: (a) using a set of 29 psychological vari-
ables to study the personality traits, emotions, and coping styles that emerge with
more force in the stressing situation of losing a loved one and (b) determining
whether there are significant differences between divorced and widowed persons.
The results revealed a profile predominated by emotional instability, introversion,
a disorganized lifestyle, anxiety, anger, and maladaptive strategies. This con-
figuration was more pronounced in the group of widowed people because of their
notable isolation, lack of motivation, and strong emotional reactions of
depression, which, together with their high rate of negative coping behaviors
(e.g., ceasing to seek solutions and social support), are risk factors for depression,
mood disorders, and anxiety as well as avoidant or depressive personality traits.
Losing a loved one can produce an unforgettable emotional impact
and leave a scar that, to some extent, marks one’s identity. The
purpose of this research is to study in depth the consequences of
this life event, in order to help heal the wounds that may pervade
so many human lives.
The relations between personality and stress affect indivi-
duals’ physical and psychological health. Most psychopathological
disorders originate after an event that has overwhelmed the person
Received 22 November 2004; accepted 11 January 2005.
This study is part of a research project titled ‘‘Personality, Chronic Stress, and Health,’’
which is funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology (Reference Number BSO2002-
00910).
Address correspondence to Violeta Cardenal, Departamento de Personalidad,
Evaluaci
oon y Tratamientos Psicol
oogicos II, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain.
E-mail: vcardenal@psi.ucm.es
267
Journal of Loss and Trauma, 10:267–292, 2005
Copyright #Taylor & Francis Inc.
ISSN: 1532-5024 print/1532-5032 online
DOI: 10.1080/15325020590928225
and surpassed his or her adaptation strategies. Millon (1996)
believed that personality disorders are frequently caused by events
that were very traumatic for the person involved.
However, when referring to situational stress variables, it must
be emphasized that, faced with the same event, not all people react
the same way. Hence, the subject’s cognitive interpretation and
assessment are essential when choosing a response.
Nevertheless, some situations tend to provoke maladaptive
behaviors in many persons. Figure 1 displays some of the most
important forms of psychosocial stress, as indicated by Herbert
and Cohen in their 1993 study.
Therefore, the theoretical foundation of reference on which
this work is based is an integrative model wherein variables or ele-
ments referring to personality, chronic stress, and health converge
from a multisystem and multivariable viewpoint and from an inter-
actionist approach. Thus, a working framework is proposed which
integrates various aspects of the person, the situation, and the con-
sequences: an adaptation of Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transac-
tional model about the psychosocial stress situations of divorce and
widowhood.
This topic has been the object of much attention by researchers.
Thus, these situations defined as life events involving emotional
losses, including the death of or separation from significant per-
sons, are usually considered to be highly related to psychological
problems (Zautra, 2003), psychopathological reactions (Kposowa,
2000; Margraf & Poldrack, 2000; Power, Rodgers, & Hope,
1999), decrease of immune competence, and even onset and recur-
rence of some illnesses such as cancer (Ader, 2003; Chochinov &
Holland, 1990; Heffner, Loving, Robles, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 2003;
Hofer, 1984; Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 1997; Maier & Watkins, 2003;
FIGURE 1 The most important types of psychosocial stress (Herbert & Cohen,
1993).
268 V. Cardenal et al.
Schleifer, Keller, Camerino, Thornton, & Stein, 1983; Segerstrom,
2003).
Many people experience the death of a loved one, for
instance, their spouse, and currently divorce has become a much
more common experience for a growing number of people. There-
fore, scientific data about these phenomena, which affect the lives
of so many people, are needed to intervene from various settings
(e.g., medical, psychological, work) and at various levels (preven-
tion and treatment). The chief conclusions of the literature are
listed subsequently, taking into account the central focus of our
present work.
Divorce
In the first place, divorce can affect personality traits, emotions,
and coping styles, the function of which is to help protect indivi-
duals from problems and everyday hassles. Because of the fre-
quently hostile nature of separation, triggered by feelings of
betrayal, being abandoned, suspicion, and disappointment, the
usual pattern of divorce processes is related to the appearance of
emotions such as anger, anxiety, sadness, and depression, and
reactions such as lack of communication, for one or both members
of the couple. In most couples, there is a significant decrease in
anger and conflicts in the first 2 or 3 years after divorce. But a small
percentage (between 8%and 12%) of individuals still fight with
their former partner in the following years, with little or no
decrease in their feelings of rage and hate (Kelly, 2003). The results
of an investigation by Kiecolt, Janice, Kennedy, Malkof, and Fisher
(1988), based on married and divorced men’s self-reports, showed
that separated and divorced men felt sadder and lonelier and
reported more recent illnesses than did married men. Such events
also cause some people to experience helplessness, hopelessness,
and lack of control, preventing them from making use of adaptive
coping styles, such as seeking social support, which depend partly
on personality (specifically extraversion and emotional stability)
(Terhell, van Broese, & van Tilburg, 2001).
Regarding the relationships between civil status and subjec-
tive well-being, Diener, Gohm, Suh, and Oishi (2000), using a sam-
ple of 59,169 adults from 42 nations, concluded that relations were
very similar all over the world. In collectivist countries, people
Personality and Loss=Separation 269
considered being married as offering fewer benefits—in terms of
positive emotions—than being separated. As for negative emotions,
marriage offered fewer advantages than separation in countries
with a permissive attitude toward divorce. And lastly, the relation
between civil status, culture, and subjective well-being showed no
sex differences.
In the second place, the most negative consequences of separ-
ation or divorce are reflected in the prevalence of clinical syn-
dromes. According to an investigation carried out with persons
of both sexes (Barrett, 2000), the beneficial effect of current mar-
riage on health is moderated by the number of losses suffered. A
higher number of previous marriages is associated with worse
mental health. The negative effect of multiple losses can also be
observed in people who are divorced. There is less evidence about
whether the type of loss suffered (divorce or spouse’s death) mod-
erates the effect of marriage on quality of life. Another study
(Valente Torre, Cavani, & Brusca, 1987) that analyzed the aggress-
iveness of patients who were fighting for their children’s custody
also revealed, by means of the Rorschach test, a broad range of
personality disorders, although the patients’ aggressiveness was
within normal limits. When attempting to determine the causes
involved in repeated suicide attempts, Peter, Sandor, Viktor, and
Ildiko (2002) found that the two most significant risk factors were
mental disorders (especially personality disorders, mood disorders,
and alcohol abuse) and unstabilizing social circumstances such as
divorce, unemployment, and low cultural level.
Widowhood
Various psychopathological indicators are also observed in widow-
hood, such as insomnia (Sutton, Moldofsky, & Badley, 2001),
higher chronic consumption of benzodiazepine (Petrovic et al.,
2002) and alcohol (Byrne, Raphael, & Arnold, 1999), and more
thoughts about death and suicide (Byrne & Raphael, 2002). The
psychological variables associated with the impact of widowhood
are loneliness, anxiety, fear, and sadness, which, in the case of eld-
erly persons, are influenced by their increasing dependence on
others and their reduced level of functioning (McInnis, 2000).
In studies that have investigated divorced and widowed
people conjointly compared to a control group, the results have
270 V. Cardenal et al.
been fairly homogeneous. Divorced-widowed groups have shown
higher levels of somatization (Metrikin, Galanter, Dermatis, & Bunt,
2003), more psychological distress (Ritsner & Ponizovsky, 2003),
higher rates of mental disorders (Essau, Wittchen, Von Zersen, &
Krieg, 1992; Stefansson, Lindal, Bjoernsson, & Guedmundsdottir,
1991, 1994) according to criteria of the third and fourth editions of
the Diagnostic and Statistical ManualofMentalDisorders(American
Psychiatric Association, 1980, 1994), and higher rates of generalized
anxiety disorder (Hunt, Issakidis, & Andrews, 2002; Margraf &
Poldrack, 2000).
At first glance, the studies reviewed reveal that, in general, the
characteristics of the investigations are as follows: (a) They have
studied divorced and widowed people separately; (b) when analyz-
ing conjointly the widowed and the divorced—considering them a
group of people who have suffered loss of or separation from loved
ones—the possible reactions that differentiate these individuals
have not been sufficiently determined; and (c) they have only
assessed partial personality aspects without offering a global vision
of an individual’s psychological world.
Therefore, the purpose of this work is (a) to study the three
basic pillars that make up the structure of personality—the main
traits, emotions, and coping styles—and emerge with the most force
to cope with the conflict of loss and (b) to determine whether there
are any differences between persons who suffer divorce or widow-
hood. Our two principal hypotheses, derived from the conclusions
and results of the above studies, were as follows.
Hypothesis 1: The psychological profile of people who have
experienced the loss of significant others, either by death or div-
orce, will be characterized by poorer mental health indicators in
comparison with those who have not undergone this experience.
For example, they will manifest personality traits that are
unhealthy: emotional instability or neuroticism, introversion,
aggressiveness, and inflexibility. The isolated presence of a certain
trait, such as introversion or inflexibility, is not considered prob-
lematic, but the configuration of several unhealthy traits can
become nonadaptive and may predict psychological disorders
(Costa, McCrae, & Siegler, 1999; Costa & Widiger, 1993). Also,
they will exhibit more negative emotions: depression, anxiety,
and anger. Finally, they will make less use of adaptive coping
styles: fewer positive thoughts, less seeking of social support and
Personality and Loss=Separation 271
solutions, less counting of advantages, and more emotional
repression. Although appraisal of whether a way of coping is
appropriate or not depends on the particular situation, in general,
according to various authors (Lazarus & Launier, 1978; Lazarus,
1984; Lazarus & Folkman, 1987), active coping styles have been
considered positive, whereas so-called avoidant strategies can be
interpreted as negative. But the present results will be interpreted
according to the specific situation analyzed herein: divorce and
widowhood. For example, resignation is considered an avoidant
strategy and therefore nonadaptive, but in widowhood it may be
a positive orientation.
Hypothesis 2: The mental health of the group that experienced
the death of a significant person will be more deteriorated than that
of the group of divorced people. The former group will score sig-
nificantly higher in emotional instability, introversion, depression,
anxiety, emotional repression, and escape and significantly lower
in positive thoughts, counting of advantages, and seeking of social
support and solutions.
Method
Participants
Three groups participated in this study. The control group
included 50 healthy individuals (25 men and 25 women) without
chronic stress, randomly selected from the Spanish population.
They ranged in age from 30 to 60 years (M¼45:4, SD ¼10:7)
and were intermediate of socioeconomic status. They were
involved in ‘‘normal’’ couple relationships. We were able to con-
firm that their scores on the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-
FFI) (Costa & McCrae, 1992) corresponded with the average in
the Spanish sample.
The divorced group included 50 individuals (25 men and 25
women) who had experienced the loss of a significant person either
by separation or divorce in the last 6 months, randomly selected from
the Spanish population. They ranged in age from 30 to 60 years
(M¼43:6, SD ¼7:3) and were of intermediate socioeconomic status.
Finally, the widowed group comprised 50 individuals (25 men
and 25 women) who had suffered the death of their spouse in the
last 6 months, randomly selected from the Spanish population.
272 V. Cardenal et al.
They ranged in age from 30 to 60 years (M¼50:5, SD ¼8:1) and
were of intermediate socioeconomic status.
The population pool from which the representative sample
was extracted, by means of random sampling, was obtained by
random selection from the municipalities of M
aalaga according to
previously established ratios of sex and age. In order to determine
socioeconomic level, samples were selected from neighborhoods
where the social level was considered neither high nor low, but
intermediate, and whose economic characteristics were similar to
those of the standard population. The professional profiles of the
three groups were diverse (qualified professionals, service employ-
ees, office workers, technicians, managers, and drivers or machine
operators).
Once the neighborhoods that were considered to be of
medium socioeconomic status had been selected, the team of psy-
chologists, specialized in surveys and questionnaires (and paid
from the grant awarded to this investigation by the Ministry of
Science), undertook the initial steps of the study, as follows:
.A total of 10 persons were assigned to the various zones or dis-
tricts agreed upon.
.In turn, each of them randomly selected a series of streets from
each district.
.They looked up the telephone numbers of various flats on a
given street.
.Subjects were contacted by telephone, and the investigation was
explained to them. If they met the selection criteria (age, sex,
civil status of divorce, widowhood, or control), they were asked
whether they wanted to participate, and they were offered—if
they so wished—the possibility of receiving a short report with
the main results as a way to motivate them to participate.
.Each member of the surveying team administered question-
naires to 15 persons—5 from the divorced group, 5 from the
widowed group, and 5 from the control group—so that parti-
cipants were obtained proportionately from each of the districts.
.An individualized appointment was agreed on with the persons
who consented to participate. They were presented with a letter
from the research team of the Complutense University, which
was carrying out the investigation, and their anonymity was
guaranteed. They then proceeded to complete the questionnaires.
Personality and Loss=Separation 273
Measures
Several instruments were employed to assess the psychological
variables, as follows.
PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS
The NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992), Spanish version
(adapted by Cordero, Pamos, & Seisdedos, 1999), was used to
assess personality dimensions. The NEO-FFI is a reduced version
(60 items) of the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (Costa &
McCrae, 1992) that measures the same (‘‘Big Five’’) personality
dimensions: neuroticism (N), extraversion (E), openness (O), agree-
ableness (A), and conscientiousness (C). This instrument has been
shown to have very satisfactory psychometric characteristics (N:
a¼:93; E: a¼:90; O: a¼:89; A: a¼:95; C: a¼:92). There is
general agreement that these five personality traits are the most
important and relevant psychological characteristics that define
and differentiate human beings, although they may come from
different cultures.
EMOTIONS
A reduced version (24 items) of the Inventory of Situations
and Responses of Anxiety (in the original Spanish version, the
‘‘Inventario de Situaciones y Respuestas de Ansiedad’’ [ISRA];
Miguel-Tobal & Cano-Vindel, 1994) was used to measure anxiety.
In addition to a global anxiety score, this questionnaire also
provides indexes of cognitive, physiological, and motor anxiety.
Studies have shown high internal consistency for the global scale
(a¼:99) and the three subscales: cognitive (a¼:96), physiological
(a¼:98), and motor (a¼:95).
Spanish version of the State-Trait Anger Inventory (Spielberger,
1988), adapted by Miguel-Tobal, Casado, Cano-Vindel, and
Spielberger (1997), was used to assess anger. This instrument (49
items) provides scores on several with very satisfactory psychometric
characteristics. Trait Anger (a¼:82) measures the general disposition
to feel anger and is composed of Anger Temperament (a¼:84) and
Angry Reaction (a¼:75). The inventory’s subscales focus on
variables associated with conflicting or stressing situations: (a) Angry
Reaction (a¼:75) measures general reactions of anger; (b) Anger
Expression-Out (a¼:69) measures intensity of anger aimed at others
274 V. Cardenal et al.
or in a social setting; (c) Anger Expression-In (a¼:67) measures the
frequency with which a person feels anger without expressing it
openly; (d) Anger Control-Out (a¼:87) measures the intensity and
frequency with which individuals try to control their outwardly-
directed anger; (e) Anger Control-In (a¼:81) measures the intensity
and frequency with which individuals try to control their inwardly-
directed anger; (f) and the Anger Expression Index (a¼:64)
measures the frequency with which a person expresses anger, inde-
pendently of whether it is directed outward or toward him- or herself.
We did not employ the State Anger subscales because the purpose of
our study was to evaluate the stability of the psychological variables.
The Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, Ward, Mendelson,
Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961) was used to assess depression. We used
the Spanish adaptation by Conde, Esteban, and Useros (1976).
The Spanish instrument (21 items) shows high test-retest reliability
(r¼:80) and internal consistency (a¼:85). The use of this inven-
tory is appropriate even in nonclinical populations, because it
offers an accurate mental health index and is inversely related to
personality variables typical of personal well-being, (e.g., self-esteem,
emotional stability, and openness).
COPING STYLES
The Coping Strategies Questionnaire (in the original Spanish
version, the ‘‘Cuestionario de Formas de Afrontamiento de Acon-
tecimientos Estresantes’’; Rodrı
´guez-Marı
´n, Terol, L
oopez-Roig, &
Pastor, 1992) was used to assess coping styles. This instrument is
based on revisions of the Ways of Coping Checklist, designed by
Folkman and Lazarus (1980, 1988) and Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen,
and DeLongis (1986). The questionnaire (50 items) was factored
into 11 subscales focusing on the following coping strategies: posi-
tive thoughts, blaming others, wishful thinking, seeking social sup-
port, seeking solutions, emotional repression, counting advantages,
religiosity, self-blame, resignation, and escape. The instruments
test-retest reliability is moderate (M¼:60). The internal consist-
ency of all of the scales is high (Ma¼:58). Analyses of item and
subscale scores also suggest excellent reliability (Rodrı
´guez-Marı
´n
et al., 1992). This questionnaire appears to have sound psycho-
metric properties and fills a gap in the assessment of stressful
events for both clinical and research purposes in the health and
clinical psychology field.
Personality and Loss=Separation 275
From each of the above subscales, a number score was
obtained, which was treated statistically as a dimension. That is,
each subject obtained a score that placed him or her along a con-
tinuum with regard to the group.
Procedure
All of the participants responded voluntarily and anonymously to
the various psychological instruments in an individual face-to-face
interview. A team of psychologists (mentioned earlier) adminis-
tered the instruments under the direction and supervision of the
director of the research team. The instructions were similar for
all participants, explaining that we wished to collect information
about psychological aspects in order to offer support to divorced
or widowed people.
First, multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) per-
formed for personality traits, were emotions, and coping styles to
determine whether there were differences in the series of diverse
variables considered globally from a multivariate perspective. Sub-
sequently, a comparative analysis of variance design (ANOVA)
was used to examine the differences in the above-mentioned vari-
ables between the two groups of stressed people (divorced and
widowed) and the control group. Bonferroni’s correction was used
to determine the acceptable alpha level for rejecting the null
hypothesis.
Results
Results are presented in three sections according to the instruments
described earlier (personality traits, emotions, and coping styles).
Personality Traits
The MANOVA, performed with Pillai’s trace statistic, was significant
(F¼44:27, p<:001. Table 1 shows means and standard deviations
for the control, divorced, and widowed groups on each of the person-
ality variables and the pairwise mean differences. ANOVAs were
performed on the personality variables, and Fvalues are presented
(in all cases, df ¼2;48Þ. In all of the ANOVAs, Bonferroni’s correc-
tion was used in the multiple comparison test to determine the
276 V. Cardenal et al.
acceptable alpha level to reject the null hypothesis. Except for three
cases indicated below,analphalevelofp<:001 was used. All of the
differences were statistically significant.
The ANOVA revealed group differences in neuroticism,
F¼78:02, MSE ¼52:68, with the control group scoring lower
than both of the other groups (mean difference ¼15:88 and
15:29 for the widowed group and the divorced group, respect-
ively). Significant differences were also observed for extraversion,
F¼22:5, MSE ¼80:41; the control group scored higher than the
other groups (mean difference ¼11:84 and 7.07 for the widowed
and the divorced group, respectively). In addition, divorced group
scored higher than the widowed group (mean difference ¼4:78,
p<:05). Openness also yielded group differences as well,
F¼75:46, MSE ¼24:81. Again, the control group scored higher
than the other two groups (mean difference ¼12.08 and 5.16 for
the widowed and the divorced group, respectively). The divorced
group’s scores were higher than the widowed group’s (mean
difference ¼6:92).
TABLE 1 Group Means, Standard Deviations, and Bonferroni Mean Differences
in Personality Variables
Personality
variables Group MSD
Bonferroni post hoc
(mean differences)
Widowed Divorced
Neuroticism Divorced 29.49 8.83 0.59
Widowed 30.08 8.60
Control 14.20 2.66 15.88 15.29
Extraversion Divorced 17.78 10.23 4.78
Widowed 13.00 10.39
Control 24.84 5.43 11.84 7.07
Openness Divorced 21.88 6.61 6.92
Widowed 14.96 5.23
Control 27.04 2.03 12.08 5.16
Agreeableness Divorced 24.49 4.29 4.96
Widowed 29.45 6.49
Control 32.10 2.46 2.657.61
Conscientiousness Divorced 29.12 5.31 2.48
Widowed 26.65 5.94
Control 37.69 2.19 11.04 8.56
p<.05; p<.001.
Personality and Loss=Separation 277
Agreeableness was also significant, F¼33:41, MSE ¼22:23.
Once again, the control group scored higher than both of the other
groups (mean difference ¼2:65 [ p<:05], and 7.61 for the
widowed and the divorced group, respectively). In addition, the
widowed group scored higher than the divorced group
(mean difference ¼4:96). Significant differences were obtained
for conscientiousness, F¼75:33, MSE ¼22:66, with the control
group again scoring higher than the other two groups
(mean difference ¼11:04 and 8.56 for the widowed and the
divorced group, respectively). The divorced group scored higher
than the widowed group (mean difference ¼2:48, p<:05).
In summary, it can be seen that both the divorced group and
the widowed group had unhealthier scores in regard to the five
large factors relative to the control group.
Emotions
The MANOVA, performed with Pillai’s trace statistic, was signifi-
cant (F¼8:26, p<:001). Table 2 shows means and standard
deviations for the three groups (control, divorced, and widowed)
on each of the emotions and the pairwise mean differences.
ANOVAs were performed on the emotion variables, and Fvalues
are presented (except where otherwise indicated, df ¼2, 149). In
all of the ANOVAs, Bonferroni’s correction was used in the mul-
tiple comparison test to determine the acceptable alpha level to
reject the null hypothesis. An alpha level of p<:001 was estab-
lished. Except for one case (anger control–in), all of the differences
were statistically significant.
Regarding the results for anxiety, as measured by the ISRA,
the control group had significantly lower scores on all of the
subscales than the other two groups. The ANOVA showed signifi-
cant differences in cognitive anxiety, F¼70:48, MSE ¼29:51,
with the control group scoring lower than both the widowed
group (mean difference ¼10:84, and the divorced group,
mean difference ¼11:31). Physiological anxiety showed group
differences, F¼86:4, MSE ¼49:45; the control group scored
lower than the widowed group (mean difference ¼15:92), and
the divorced group (mean difference ¼15:84). Significant
differences were also observed for motor anxiety, F¼95:2,
MSE ¼25. Once again, the control group scored lower than both
278 V. Cardenal et al.
TABLE 2 Group Means, Standard Deviations, and Bonferroni Mean Differences
in Emotions
Emotion Group MSD
Bonferroni post hoc
(mean differences)
Widowed Divorced
Cognitive anxiety Divorced 15.72 6.88 0.47
Widowed 15.25 5.79
Control 4.41 2.84 10.84 11.31
Physiological anxiety Divorced 18.80 9.64
Widowed 18.88 7.06
Control 2.96 2.55 15.92 15.84
Motor anxiety Divorced 13.54 7.07 0.95
Widowed 14.49 4.69
Control 2.20 1.90 12.29 11.34
Global anxiety Divorced 47.96 22.26 0.63
Widowed 48.59 14.67
Control 9.59 5.56 39.00 38.37
Depression Divorced 39.04 10.85 6.21
Widowed 45.25 6.90
Control 27.08 7.92 18.18 11.96
Trait anger Divorced 24.07 5.7 0.36
Widowed 23.71 5.12
Control 16.99 3.28 6.72 7.08
Anger temperament Divorced 12.18 2.68 0.14
Widowed 12.04 2.53
Control 7.66 2.14 4.38 4.52
Angry reaction Divorced 12.64 2.75 0.97
Widowed 11.67 2.88
Control 9.78 1.68 1.89 2.86
Anger expression-out Divorced 14.24 2.67 0.20
Widowed 14.04 2.43
Control 10.00 2.67 4.04 4.24
Anger expression-in Divorced 14.02 2.84 0.18
Widowed 13.84 2.52
Control 9.90 2.63 3.94 4.12
Anger control-out Divorced 13.58 2.28 0.42
Widowed 14.00 2.81
Control 12.12 1.75 1.88 1.46
Anger control-in Divorced 14.06 3.24 0.82
Widowed 14.88 3.18
Control 14.00 1.81 0.88
Anger index Divorced 37.54 5.86 2.54
Widowed 35.00 3.27
Control 29.78 4.21 5.22 7.76
p<.05; p<.01; p<.001.
Personality and Loss=Separation 279
the widowed group (mean difference ¼12:29) and the divorced
group (mean difference ¼11:34). As expected, total anxiety
was also significant, F¼103:26, MSE ¼245:65. The control
group scored lower than both the widowed group (mean
difference ¼39:00), and the divorced group (mean
difference ¼38:37). There were no significant differences
between the divorced group and the widowed group on any of
the types of anxiety.
The ANOVA on depression was also statistically significant,
F¼57:49, MSE ¼75:67. Once again, the control group scored
lower than the widowed group (mean difference ¼18:18) and
the divorced group (mean difference ¼11:96). In addition, the
widowed group scored higher than the divorced group
(mean difference ¼6:21).
With regard to anger, as measured by the State-Trait Anger
Inventory, the ANOVA on trait anger was statistically significant,
F¼50:09, MSE ¼22:49. The control group had lower scores than
the widowed group (mean difference ¼6:72), and the divorced
group (mean difference ¼7:08). Anger temperament was statisti-
cally significant, F¼54:67, MSE ¼6:05. The control group had
lower scores than the widowed group (mean difference ¼4:38),
and the divorced group (mean difference ¼4:52).
The differences in angry reaction were also significant,
F¼16:91, MSE ¼6:25. The control group scored lower than
the widowed group (mean difference ¼1:89), and the divorced
group (mean difference ¼2:86). Anger expression-out revealed
significant differences, F¼43:27, MSE ¼6:71: Again, the control
group scored lower than the widowed group (mean difference ¼
4:04), and the divorced group (mean difference ¼4:24). Anger
expression-in showed the same tendency, F¼38:77, MSE ¼7:1.
The control group had lower scores than both the widowed group
(mean difference ¼3:94), and the divorced group (mean
difference ¼4:12). Differences were also observed in anger
control-out, F¼9:22, MSE ¼5:39, with the control group scoring
lower than the widowed group (mean difference ¼1:88), and the
divorced group (mean difference ¼1:46).
The ANOVA on the Anger Expression Index was significant,
F¼37:97, MSE ¼20:83. A multiple comparison test indicated
that the control group’s scores were significantly lower than those
of the widowed group (mean difference ¼5:22) and the divorced
280 V. Cardenal et al.
group (mean difference ¼7:76), and the divorced group’s scores
were higher than the widowed group’s (mean difference ¼2:54,
p<:05). There were no significant differences between the
divorced group and the widowed group on any of the other anger
subscales. In addition, the ANOVA on anger control-in was not
statistically significant, F¼1:55, p¼:214, MSE ¼7:93.
Therefore, concerning emotions, the control group in general
had lower scores on anxiety, anger, and depression than the
divorced and widowed groups. In addition, the widowed group
had higher depression scores than the other two groups.
Coping Styles
The MANOVA, performed with Pillai’s trace statistic, was signifi-
cant (F¼12:02, p<:001). Table 3 shows means and standard
deviations for the three groups (control, divorced, and widowed)
on each of the coping styles and the pairwise mean differences.
ANOVAs were performed on the emotion variables, and Fvalues
are presented (in all cases, df ¼2, 148). In all of the ANOVAs,
Bonferroni’s correction was used in the multiple comparison
test to determine the acceptable alpha level to reject the null
hypothesis. Unless otherwise indicated, an alpha level of
p<:001 was established. All of the differences were statistically
significant.
The ANOVA revealed significant differences in positive
thoughts, F¼94:58, MSE ¼5:48. The control group scored
higher than both the widowed group (mean difference ¼6:27),
and the divorced group (mean difference ¼4:14), and the scores
of the divorced group were higher than those of the widowed
group (mean difference ¼2:14). Group differences were obtained
for blaming others, F¼5:03, p<:01, MSE ¼4:89, with the
divorced group scoring higher than both the widowed group
(mean difference ¼1:24, p<:05), and the control group (mean
difference ¼1:20, p<:05). Wishful thinking produced differences,
F¼31:46, MSE ¼8:6. The control group scored higher than the
divorced group (mean difference ¼1:25, p<:05) and the
widowed group (mean difference ¼4:47), and the divorced group
scored higher than the widowed group (mean difference ¼3:22).
Group differences in social support seeking were revealed,
Personality and Loss=Separation 281
TABLE 3 Group Means, Standard Deviations, and Bonferroni Mean Differences
in Coping Styles
Coping style Group MSD
Bonferroni post hoc
(mean differences)
Widowed Divorced
Positive thoughts Divorced 14.45 2.86 2.14
Widowed 12.31 2.09
Control 18.59 2.00 6.27 4.14
Blaming others Divorced 11.08 2.57 1.24
Widowed 9.84 1.95
Control 9.88 2.08 1.20
Wishful thinking Divorced 12.53 2.81 3.22
Widowed 9.31 2.73
Control 13.78 3.23 4.47 1.25
Social support seeking Divorced 8.51 1.97 1.26
Widowed 7.25 1.67
Control 10.76 0.76 3.51 2.25
Solution seeking Divorced 14.59 2.91 2.28
Widowed 12.31 2.28
Control 16.86 2.65 4.55 2.27
Emotional repression Divorced 12.31 1.58 0.60
Widowed 11.71 1.32
Control 11.49 1.03 0.22 0.82
Counting advantages Divorced 5.20 1.55
Widowed 5.14 1.43
Control 7.25 1.49 2.12 2.05
Religiosity Divorced 6.02 1.70 1.16
Widowed 4.86 1.52
Control 7.06 2.27 2.20 1.04
Self-blame Divorced 5.53 1.08 0.53
Widowed 5.00 1.17
Control 6.84 0.70 1.84 1.31
Resignation Divorced 5.67 1.52 0.87
Widowed 4.80 1.28
Control 6.67 1.07 1.86 0.99
Escape Divorced 8.20 1.68 0.75
Widowed 7.45 1.64
Control 7.24 1.74 0.22 0.97
p<.05; p<.01; p<.001.
282 V. Cardenal et al.
F¼67:182, MSE ¼2:39. The control group’s scores were higher
than the widowed group’s (mean difference ¼3:51) and the
divorced group’s (mean difference ¼2:25), and the divorced
group’s scores were higher than the widowed group’s
(mean difference ¼1:26). The ANOVA also yielded significant
differences in solution seeking, F¼38:25, MSE ¼6:89. The
control group again scored higher than both the widowed
group (mean difference ¼4:55), and the divorced group (mean
difference ¼2:27), and the divorced group scored higher than
the widowed group (mean difference ¼2:28).
Significant differences were revealed in emotional repression,
F¼5:06, p<:01, MSE ¼1:75. The scores of the control group
were lower than those of the divorced group (mean difference
¼0:82, p<:01). Counting advantages also yielded significant
differences, F¼32:97, MSE ¼2:28. The control group once again
scored higher than both the widowed group (mean difference
¼2:12) and the divorced group (mean difference ¼2:05). In
addition, the ANOVA revealed significant differences in religi-
osity, F¼17:79, MSE ¼3:45. The control group scored higher
than the widowed group (mean difference ¼2:20) and the
divorced group (mean difference ¼1:04, p<:05), and the divo-
rced group’s scores were higher than the scores of the widowed
group (mean difference ¼1:16, p<:01). Self-blame also pro-
duced group differences, F¼45:55, MSE ¼1. The control group
scored higher than both the widowed group (mean difference
¼1:84) and the divorced group (mean difference ¼1:31), and
the divorced group scored higher than the widowed group
(mean difference ¼0:53, p<:01).
In the ANOVA on resignation, significant differences were
also observed, F¼26:21, MSE ¼1:69, with the control group
again scoring higher than the widowed group, (mean difference
¼1:86) and the divorced group (mean difference ¼0:99). In
addition, the divorced group scored higher than the widowed
group (mean difference ¼0:87, p<:01). Significant differences
were also revealed for escape, F¼4:51, p<:05, MSE ¼4:51.
The control group scored lower than the divorced group
(mean difference ¼0:97, p<:05), but showed no differences
with the widowed group.
The coping styles considered more adaptive seemed, in gen-
eral, to be more closely associated with the control group, with
Personality and Loss=Separation 283
the exceptions blaming others, resignation, and self-blame, as
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Discussion
The chief goals of this work were to study the basic personality
traits, emotions, and coping styles that emerge more forcefully to
deal with the problem of loss and to determine whether there
are differences between persons who have been divorced and
those who have experienced widowhood. Because this design
was not experimental, however, causality necessarily remains
questionable. Thus, our conclusions are limited to describing dif-
ferent psychological aspects observed and assessed in the three
groups. These data may contribute to replicating other findings
and generating hypotheses in future investigations.
The results reveal three distinct personality profiles and
coping styles corresponding to the groups of widowed persons,
divorcees, and controls. In the emotional sphere, there were two
clear tendencies, one corresponding to the control group and the
other to the groups who were under stress (although there were
some differences, which will be commented upon).
In the area of personality traits, there was a high level of affect-
ive instability or neuroticism displayed by both widowed and
divorced people. This lends support to the main idea that loss of
significant others produces a very stressful situation, which is
reflected in this experience of emotional imbalance (Margraf &
Poldrack, 2000) and underlies most psychological disorders.
Second, four characteristics also revealed large differences
between the persons who experienced loss of significant others
and the control group. The former were less extraverted, less open,
less capable of organizing themselves, and less agreeable. Accord-
ing to several authors (Costa et al., 1999; Costa & Widiger, 1993;
Duijsens & Diekstra, 1996; Fierro & Cardenal, 2001; Marshall,
Wortman, Vickers, Kusulas, & Hervig, 1994), the negative signs
of these traits indicate poorer mental health, and, when several
of these traits are concurrent, it clearly indicates a personality pro-
file apt to involve psychological problems (Ritsner & Ponizovsky,
2003).
Third, relevant differences in intensity were observed
between the widowed group and the divorcees. The death of one’s
284 V. Cardenal et al.
spouse is associated with isolation and withdrawal (high introver-
sion) as well as lack of motivation to achieve goals and lack of
perseverance, slackness, and reduced interest in events (low con-
scientiousness). In accordance with this, the widowed group exhib-
ited large differences with the divorcees in openness to experience
(the latter were much more open), displaying inflexibility, intoler-
ance, and mental rigidity. On the other hand, marriage breakages
arouse more hostility, aggressiveness, and anger (low agreeable-
ness) than do bereavement processes (Kelly, 2003).
To sum up the personality variables, our results confirmed the
notion that experiencing these types of stressful situations has a
notable effect on the normal course of life. More pain and more
psychological consequences are observed in widowed persons
(Byrne & Raphael, 2002), where an avoidant, melancholy, passive,
inhibited, and interiorized profile emerges, which can very likely
lead to depressive disorders. On the other hand, in divorced per-
sons, although there is a clear affective imbalance, introversion
and isolation are not so pronounced. Although the individuals
from the divorced group would like to organize their lives and
carry on, sometimes their desire for vengeance and feelings of rage
and anger at others may cause their interpersonal relationships to
be stormy, which, in turn, can lead to anxiety and somatoform
disorders.
The three main emotions assessed were anxiety, anger, and
depression. In the first two, only two profiles emerged: a conjoint
profile for the widowed and divorced people and one for the con-
trol group. The experience of losing one’s spouse, either by death
or divorce, produced significant differences in the emotional reac-
tions of anxiety and anger compared to the control group, which
had not had this experience. These contrasts are reflected both
in higher global anxiety and in the indicators of cognitive, physio-
logical, and motor anxiety. Similarly, not only was there a higher
tendency to feel more internal hostility and to experience rage
and anger internally, but also to express anger at others, although
this reaction was somewhat more pronounced in the divorced
group.
Although depression was also experienced by divorced
people, it was higher in the widowed group, as also reported by
Ader (2003), which indicates that this group has a poorer prognosis
in the emotional area and is more apt to suffer symptoms of major
Personality and Loss=Separation 285
depression (Byrne & Raphael, 2002) and, in general, dysthymic
and anxiety disorders.
Whereas the personality variables and emotions analyzed are
somewhat stable in an individual’s behavior, coping styles,
although determined by the former variables, provide specific stra-
tegies for an individual to cope with problematic events. We now
comment on the styles used the most by these groups of people
and the differences observed.
At first glance, the data indicate that both the widowed and
the divorced groups resort significantly less to adaptive strategies,
such as use of positive reappraisal of events, tendency to seek
social support or solutions, counting advantages, religiosity, and
more use of emotional repression. However, in the group of
widowed persons, some of these coping styles emerge with more
force, becoming even more negative, so that these persons make
less cognitive effort to focus on the positive. These individuals do
not look to friends and family members for moral or psychological
support, nor do they undertake any kind of action or plan activities
that might help them, such as consulting a professional, reading
books, or engaging in some kind of leisure activity. Along the same
lines, they report that their religious beliefs or spiritual practice do
not offer them any comfort, and they refuse to accept the situation
and thus do not feel constructively resigned to their loss. It is note-
worthy that only among the divorced persons did the strategies of
escape and avoidance emerge more strongly, indicating that these
people tend to run from the problem and to blame or hold others
responsible.
Therefore, the general profile of coping styles also displays a
higher predisposition to psychological disorders in widowed and
divorced people, in comparison with people who also experience
stress but not these specific events. The coping styles of the
widowed group are even more dramatic, and their instrumental
behaviors reveal more severity, more frequency, and a higher
intensity of the use of unhealthy coping styles which border on
psychopathology.
Summing up, and taking into account all of the behavioral
indicators analyzed above—personality, emotions, and coping
styles—the final conclusion is the presence of a psychological
profile of people who have experienced situations of loss of signifi-
cant others, either by death or divorce, characterized by emotional
286 V. Cardenal et al.
instability, introversion, disorganization, mental rigidity, and a
tendency toward irritability and hostility. Such a profile, together
with emotional reactions of anxiety, rage, and anger and cognitive
strategies of negative reappraisal and reinterpretation, infrequent
use of social support, and deficient active solution seeking, may
lead to clinical syndromes of anxiety, somatoform or mood disor-
ders, or substance consumption, resulting in typical symptoms of
some avoidant or passive-aggressive personality traits.
However, this configuration can become more severe in
widowed persons. This is due to their notable isolation, inhibition,
lack of motivation, and pronounced emotional reaction of
depression, in addition to their more frequent behaviors of nega-
tive and maladaptive coping, such as refusal to seek solutions or
social support. These are very important risk factors for depression
and minor mood disorders, as well as avoidant or depressive
personality traits.
The above reveals the need to implement programs of thera-
peutic support to help these persons minimize the emotional
impact produced by these experiences, reduce the isolation they
seem to choose voluntarily, adjust their viewpoint of events, and
use more active and healthy coping styles, with more social projec-
tion. It is the task of the professional to detect these maladaptive
behaviors in work, medical, and psychological settings and to
orient people to achieve a better and more positive quality of life
with the loved ones who are still present in their lives.
Finally, aside from conclusions and possible contributions,
there are deficiencies that we, the authors, have found in this work
which may relativize or cast doubt on the scope of the data
obtained. The limited number of participants and the heterogen-
eity of their ages may make generalization of the results more
difficult. We point out the difficulty of contacting people who have
undergone these types of events and persuading them to partici-
pate, because they are suffering very negative and painful conse-
quences that do not encourage them to make this effort.
Another limitation of this work is that it analyzed from a syn-
chronic approach, simultaneously, the effects of divorce and
widowhood without contemplating the possible permanence of
the change in personality traits. After a period of transition,
a person may readopt his or her more characteristic behavioral
traits, and therefore a longitudinal methodology might assist in
Personality and Loss=Separation 287
evaluating and following up on the perseverance or restructuring
of the personality. In any case, according to the classic position
of Allport (1937), personality, although it involves some degree of
stability, is always receiving feedback from experienced events, so
expression of traits is never the same as it was before these events.
Moreover, the characteristics involved in the process of divorce
or widowhood, such as the existence of children, the social support
provided, previous duration and quality of the relation, and so forth,
were not taken into account. Grouping together, according to simi-
larity of conditions, people who have gone through these experi-
ences and analyzing differences or noteworthy subtleties would,
no doubt, help to clarify this issue. Once again, this involves having
access to large population samples with which to form statistically
solid groups. This can be extremely difficult to achieve.
For the time being, and as a continuation of this work, various
factors will be taken into account in future research, such as the
influence of age and sex and their possible modulating effect on
differences in personality and emotional reactions. Similarly,
physiological measurements such as immune or neuroendocrino-
logical indicators will also be incorporated to provide a biological
complement in the global psychophysical analysis of the person
from an inter-disciplinary viewpoint. This will facilitate the study
of the negative consequences of these stressing events, not only
on mental health but also on slight organic disorders or severe
physical illnesses such as cancer. By this global and basic analysis
of the problem, our current research, the first results of which we
have presented here, is advancing and incorporating these new
aspects.
References
Ader, R. (2003). Psychoneuroimmunology: Basic research in the biopsychosocial
approach. In R. M. Frankel, T. E. Quill, & S. H. McDaniel (Eds.), The biop-
sychosocial approach: Past, present, future (pp. 93–108). Rochester, NY: Univer-
sity of Rochester Press.
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Nueva York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
American Psychiatric Association. (1980, 1994). Diagnostic and satistical manual of
mental disorders (3rd and 4th eds.). Washington, DC: Author.
Barrett, A. E. (2000). Marital trajectories and mental health. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior,41, 451–464.
288 V. Cardenal et al.
Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An
inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry,4, 561–571.
Byrne, G. & Raphael, B. (2002). The psychological symptoms of conjugal
bereavement in elderly men over the first 13 months. International Journal
of Geriatric Psychiatry, 12, 241–251.
Byrne, G., Raphael, B., & Arnold, E. (1999). Alcohol consumption and psycho-
logical distress in recently widowed older men. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Psychiatry, 33, 740–747.
Chochinov, H. & Holland, J. C. (1990). Bereavement: A special issue in Oncology.
In J. C. Holland & J. H. Rowland (Eds.), Handbook of psychooncology: Psychological
care of the patient with cancer (pp. 612–627). New York: Oxford University Press.
Conde, V., Esteban, T., & Useros, E. (1976). Revisi
oon crı
´tica de la adaptacion castel-
lana del Cuestionario de Beck. Revistade Psicologı
´
a General y Aplicada, 31, 469–497.
Cordero, A., Pamos, A., & Seisdedos, N. (1999). Inventario de personalidad NEO
revisado (NEO PI-R): Inventario NEO reducido de cinco factores (NEO-FFI).
Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
Costa, P. T., Jr. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO-PI-R Personality Inventory
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Siegler, I. C. (1999). Continuity and change over
the adult life cycle: Personality and personality disorders. In C. R. Cloninger
(Ed.), Personality and psychopathology (pp. 129–155). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Costa, P. T. & Widiger, T. A. (Eds.). (1993). Personality disorders and the five-factor
model of personality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Diener, E., Gohm, C. L., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (2000). Similarity of the relations
between marital status and subjective well-being across cultures. Journal of
Cross Cultural Psychology, 31, 419–436.
Duijsens, I. J. & Diekstra, R. F. W. (1996). DSM-III and ICD-10 personality
disorders and their relationship with the big-five dimensions of personality.
Personality and Individual Differences,21, 19–33.
Essau, C. A., Wittchen, H. U., Von Zersen, D., & Krieg, J. C. (1992). Lifetime and
six-month prevalence of mental disorders in the Munich Follow-up Study.
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 241, 247–258.
Fierro, A. & Cardenal, V. (2001). Pertinencia de estilos de personalidad y vari-
ables cognitivas a indicadores de salud mental [Pertinence of personality
styles and cognitive variables for mental health indicators]. Revista de Psicolo-
gı´
a General y Aplicada, 54, 207–226.
Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged com-
munity sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219–239.
Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Manual for the Ways of Coping Questionnaire:
Research edition. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal,
coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50, 571–579.
Heffner, K. L., Loving, T. J., Robles, T. F., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2003). Exam-
ining psychosocial factors related to cancer incidence and progression: In
search of the silver lining. Brain, Behavior and Immunity, 17, 109–111.
Personality and Loss=Separation 289
Herbert, T. B. & Cohen, S. (1993). Stress and immunity in humans: A meta-
analytic review. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 364–379.
Hunt, C., Issakidis, C., & Andrews, G. (2002). KSM-IV generalized anxiety
disorder in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well Being.
Psychological Medicine,32, 649–659.
Kelly, J. B. (2003). Parents with enduring child disputes: Multiple pathways to
enduring disputes. Journal of Family Studies, 9, 37–50.
Kiecolt, G., Janice, K., Kennedy, S., Malkof, S., & Fisher, L. (1988). Marital
discord and immunity in males. Psychosomatic Medicine, 50, 213–229.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Glaser, R., Cacioppo, J. T., MacCallum, R. C., Snydersmith, M.,
Kim, C., & Malarkey, W. B. (1997). Marital conflict in older adults: Endocrino-
logical and immunological correlates. Psychosomatic Medicine, 59, 339–349.
Kposowa, A. J. (2000). Marital status and suicide in the national longitudinal
mortality study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54, 254–261.
Lazarus, R. S. (1984). Coping. In R. J. Corsini (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology
(Vol. 1, pp. 294–296). New York: Wiley.
Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York:
Springer.
Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on
emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality,1, 141–169.
Lazarus, R. S. & Launier, R. (1978). Stress-related transactions between person
and environment. In L. A. Pervin & M. Lewis (Eds.), Perspectives in interac-
tional psychology (pp. 287–327). New York: Plenum.
Maier, S. F. & Watkins, L. R. (2003). Immune-to-central nervous system com-
munication and its role in modulating pain and cognition: Implications for
cancer and cancer treatment. Brain, Behavior and Immunity, 17, 125–131.
Margraf, L. & Poldrack, A. (2000). Anxiety syndromes in East and West
Germany: A representative study. Zeitschrift fuer Klinische Psychologie und
Psychotherapie, 29, 157–169.
Marshall, G. N., Wortman, C. B., Vickers, R. R., Kusulas, J. W., & Hervig, L. K.
(1994). The five-factor model of personality as a framework for personality-
health research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 278–286.
McInnis, G. (2000). A phenomenological exploration of loneliness in the
older adult. Dissertation Abstracts International: The Sciences and Engineering,
61, 1873.
Metrikin, A., Galanter, M., Dermatis, H., & Bunt, G. (2003). Somatization, anxiety
and depression in a drug-free residential therapeutic community. American
Journal on Addictions, 12, 60–70.
Miguel-Tobal, J. J. & Cano-Vindel, A. (1994). Inventario de Situaciones y Respuestas
de Ansiedad (I.S.R.A.) [Inventory of Situations and Responses of Anxiety] (3rd ed.).
Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
Miguel-Tobal, J. J., Casado, M. I., Cano-Vindel, A., & Spielberger, C. D. (1997).
El estudio de la ira en los trastornos cardiovasculares mediante el empleo del
Inventario de Expresi
oon de Ira Estado-Rasgo–STAXI [The study of anger in
cardiovascular disorders using the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory].
Ansiedad y Estre
´s,3, 5–20.
290 V. Cardenal et al.
Millon, T. (1996). Disorders of personality: DSM-IV and beyond. New York: Wiley.
Peter, O., Sandor, F., Viktor, V., & Ildiko, A. (2002). Az ismetelt oengyilkossagi
kiserletet elkoevetok jellemzoi. A szodiodemografiai es pszichopatologiai
tenyezok szerepe. Attekintes a WHO=EURO multicentrikus Europai Szuici-
dologiai kutatas pecsi centrumanak adatai alapjan [Characteristics of persons
with repeated suicide attempt: Sociodemographic and psychopathologic
factors. Review of results of Pecs centre]. Psychiatria-Hungarica,17, 234–244.
Petrovic, M., Vandierenkonck, A., Mariman, A., Van Maele, L. G., Afschrift, M.,
& Pevernagie, D. (2002). Personality traits and socio-epidemiological status
of hospitalised elderly benzodiazepine users. International Journal of Geriatric
Psychiatry, 17, 733–738.
Power, C., Rodgers, B., & Hope, S. (1999). Heavy alcohol consumption and mari-
tal status: Disentangling the relationship in a national study of young adults.
Addiction, 94, 1477–1487.
Ritsner, M. & Ponizovsky, A. (2003). Age differences in stress process of recent
immigrants. Comprehensive Psychiatry,44, 135–141.
Rodrı
´guez-Marı
´n, J., Terol, M. C., L
oopez-Roig, S., & Pastor, M. A. (1992).
Evaluaci
oon del afrontamiento del estre
´s: Propiedades psicome
´tricas del
Cuestionario de Formas de Afrontamiento de Acontecimientos Estresantes
[Assessment of coping with stress: Psychometric characteristics of the Ways
of Coping with Stressing Events Questionnaire]. Revista de Psicologı´
adela
Salud, 4, 59–84.
Schleifer, S. J., Keller, S., Camerino, M., Thornton, J. C., & Stein, M. (1983).
Suppression of lymphocyte stimulation following bereavement. Journal of
the American Medical Association,250, 374–377.
Segerstrom, S. C. (2003). Individual differences, immunity, and cancer: Lessons
from personality psychology. Brain, Behavior and Immunity,17, 92–97.
Spielberger, C. D. (1988). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Stefansson, J., Lindal, E., Bjoernsson, J., & Guedmundsdottir, A. (1991). Lifetime
prevalence of specific mental disorders among people born in Iceland in
1931. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica,84, 129–142.
Stefansson, J., Lindal, E., Bjoernsson, J., & Guedmundsdottir, A. (1994). Period
prevalence rates of specific mental disorders in an Icelandic cohort. Social
Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,29, 119–125.
Sutton, D. A., Moldofsky, H., & Badley, E. M. (2001). Insomnia and health
problems in Canadians. Sleep and Hypnosis,24, 665–670.
Terhell, L., Van Broese, G. M., & van Tilburg, T. (2001). Support after divorce: A
matter of personality? Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie en haar
Grensgebieden,29, 166–176.
Valente Torre, L., Cavani, P., & Brusca, C. (1987). Separation au divorce: analyse
de l’agresssivite
´de patients qui se disputent la charge des enfants. [Separation
or divorce: Analysis of the aggressivity of patients fighting for child custody].
Psychologie Medicale,19, 511–513.
Zautra, A. J. (2003). Emotions, stress and health. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Personality and Loss=Separation 291
Violeta Cardenal is a Senior lecturer at the Complutense University of
Madrid. The main focus of her work is related to Personality, Chronic
Stress, and Health. Particularly, she is interested in the influence of psycho-
social factors (stressing situations such as divorce and widowhood, person-
ality traits, emotions, etc.) on mental and physical health and also in the
onset and evolution of physical illness (mostly cancer). She has written
books and articles on this subject.
M. Pilar S
aanchez-L
oopez is a Professor at the Complutense University
of Madrid. She has published books and papers on Women and Health.
Currently she is running a project about the impact of various forms of
stress in personal well-being and related gender.
Margarita Ortiz-Tallo is a Senior lecturer at the University of M
aalaga.
She researches psychopathological processes. She is particularly interested
in personality styles and disorders. She has written various books and
articles on this and other subject issues.
292 V. Cardenal et al.