Journal of Divorce & Remarriage

ISSN: 1050-2556 (Print) 1540-4811 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjdr20

Attachment Perspective on Marital Dissolution

and Relational Family Therapy

Barbara Simonič & Nataša Rijavec Klobučar

To cite this article: Barbara Simonič & Nataša Rijavec Klobučar (2017) Attachment Perspective on
Marital Dissolution and Relational Family Therapy, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 58:3, 161-174,
DOI: 10.1080/10502556.2017.1300015

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2017.1300015

Published online: 30 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1382

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjdr20
JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE
2017, VOL. 58, NO. 3, 161–174
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2017.1300015

Attachment Perspective on Marital Dissolution and

Relational Family Therapy
Barbara Simonič and Nataša Rijavec Klobučar
Department for Marital and Family Therapy and Psychology and Sociology of Religion, Faculty of
Theology, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Divorce or dissolution of a long-term intimate relationship is an Attachment injury; divorce;
event on the continuum of an individual’s experience of emotional regulation;
attachment injury that is reawakened and played out again in relational family therapy
this process. An attachment injury means the experience of
rejection and betrayal of trust at a critical time of distress when
one is in need of support. By means of the case study method,
the article presents a case of a female client dealing with
divorce. The history of traumatic relations through a lens of
attachment theory is presented, along with divorce as the
reawakening of an attachment injury and its processing in a
relational family therapy model.

Divorce or dissolution of a long-term intimate relationship is undoubtedly

one of the more difficult trials experienced by an individual. Sometimes it is a
welcome and unavoidable solution to various relational problems and stress-
ful circumstances in marriage (e.g., high levels of conflict, violence, unfaith-
fulness, addictions, etc.); in any case, however, it is difficult for everyone
involved (Margulies, 2007). Various factors influence the severity of the
consequences of divorce, but to some extent it certainly depends on an
individual’s ability to effectively face the change.
Divorce brings numerous emotional, social, and financial consequences for
spouses, children, and the wider family, consequences that remain long after all
formal aspects of divorce are settled (Cherlin, Chase-Lansdale, & McRae, 1998;
Pryor & Rodgers, 2001). Research shows that divorcees experience heightened
psychological stress that manifests, among other symptoms, in higher levels of
depression and lesser satisfaction (Amato, 2000), higher alcohol consumption
and lower quality of sleep (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002), and even higher levels
of mortality (Sbarra & Nietert, 2009). Divorce means change, which intervenes
with an individual’s routine daily rhythm and way of life, destroying one’s
expectations (Robinson, 1991). On a deeper level, dissolution of a relationship
is always a loss, not only of partner but also of social status, financial security and

CONTACT Barbara Simonič, PhD [email protected] Department for Marital and Family Therapy
and Psychology and Sociology of Religion, Faculty of Theology, University of Ljubljana, Poljanska cesta 4, Ljubljana
SI-1000, Slovenia.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
162 B. SIMONIČ AND N. RIJAVEC KLOBUČAR

current financial resources, home, and family; it means breaking of ties within
social networks and therefore the possibility of loss of social and emotional
support (Demo, Fine, & Ganong, 2000), all of which awakens a plethora of
emotions. Ex-partners experience guilt, anger, desperation, fear, and disappoint-
ment. Loneliness, confusion, low self-respect, uncertainty, and rejection are
often present (Halperin, 2006). If children are involved, there can be more
pain and complications (Amato, 2001). In divorce there are no winners or
losers, although not all divorces are traumatic resulting in exceptionally heavy
emotions. Some divorcees report that after divorce, their lives improved (Määttä,
2011) and led to personal growth (Amato, 2000). On the way to a “good
divorce,” however, there are many obstacles and necessary facing of painful
issues awakened during this period of change.
The main intrapsychic task during divorce is emotional processing,
especially processing heavy emotional states into more acceptable and
positive emotions. Critical in this process are the circumstances of
divorce as well as an individual’s past experiences, which form his or
her model of strategies for coping with distress (Wang & Amato, 2000).
Researchers (Newman & Newman, 2003; Rijavec Klobučar & Simonič,
2016) note that people face consequences of divorce according to the
types of stressors, sources of help, and support that are available to
individuals during this stressful period, and according to the meaning
they ascribe to the divorce situation. Researchers have discovered that
stressor intensity is not very crucial for predicting how well an individual
will adapt to divorce. More important are coping strategies stemming
from sources of help and support, as well as the individual personal
meaning of divorce. There can be background complications stemming
from an individual’s subconscious psychological processes and structure,
which have been built in relation to experiences since one’s birth
(Simonič & Rijavec Klobučar, 2016). Attachment theory offers one per-
spective on the characteristics of emotional processing and behavior in
times of distress, such as divorce.

The perspective of attachment theory on partners’ relationship

dissolution
Attachment theory is one of the ways of understanding the relational back-
ground of divorce and an individual’s experience of divorce, because it
enables understanding of emotional regulation strategies used differently by
individuals with different styles of attachment to adapt to circumstances
brought up by divorce; in addition, it provides an important perspective on
divorce as a disturbance and breakup of a strong attachment bond (Feeney &
Monin, 2008). Attachment theory is, at its core, a theory of separation from
 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 163

an attachment figure and cutting of an attachment bond (Bowlby, 1973),

which are also two key aspects of divorce.
With the theory of attachment, Bowlby (1980) described human psychobio-
logical structure as the source of an individual’s style of building and maintain-
ing, as well as cutting bonds with others. This style is mostly influenced by those
persons in the child’s surroundings who are crucial for the child’s physical as
well as emotional survival. The attachment relationship provides the child with
the physical closeness of the primary guardian or attachment figure, while
affective bonds are formed between them; here they meet as individuals and
one of them is emotionally very important for the other, which makes this
person indispensable. The mechanism explains how a child establishes and
maintains a bond with his or her parent or primary caretaker, and how the
child responds to breaking the contact (e.g., in secure attachment, the child will
be able to seek the closeness with an attachment figure, he or she will maintain
the feeling of security, the feeling that in distress he or she can turn to this person
who will comfort him of her and calm his or her anxiety). The primary relation-
ship with the caretaker (usually mother or both parents) enables the child’s
physical survival and at the same time regulates emotionally challenging situa-
tions in stressful periods (Erzar & Kompan Erzar, 2011).
System of attachment can be defined as a lifelong development system
where individuals use extremely complex physical, cognitive, and commu-
nication strategies for establishing strong emotional bonds to protect them
from real or potential threats (Feeney & Noller, 1996). The quality of
attachment bonds with the attachment figure in childhood therefore influ-
ences all of an individual’s future relationships because it represents the
model of relationships and seeing oneself, others, and the world (internal
working models). From the viewpoint of lifelong perspective, the quality of
attachment that forms in early childhood influences the forming of later
relationships, either in a wider social context or in intimate relationships
(Bowlby, 1973). Established attachment bonds tend to remain permanent
(from the cradle to the grave). Divorce therefore demands reorganization of
an attachment bond and as such represents an extraordinarily important life
test (Feeney & Monin, 2008). According to the theory of attachment, dis-
solution of partners’ relationship creates a stressful situation that activates the
system of attachment, which means that the individual focuses on seeking
closeness with an attachment figure representing a safe haven (Weiss, 1975).
In adulthood, an attachment figure is the person we are in the intimate
romantic relationship (Hazan & Shaver, 1994), and if we lose this person, the
loss has to be mourned. Attachment to the ex-partner is therefore treated as
an important variable in understanding adults and their responses to broken
relationships (Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Vareschi & Bursik, 2005); we can
understand it as one of the primary causes of subjective experiencing of
distress as the result of divorce.
164 B. SIMONIČ AND N. RIJAVEC KLOBUČAR

Several authors (Feeney & Noller, 1996; Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Hirschberger,
Srivastava, Marsh, Cowan, & Cowan, 2009; Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994), who
explored divorce from the perspective of attachment theory, found a connection
between the duration of and satisfaction in relationships and attachment styles,
where the relations of people with secure attachment style are the longest lasting
and the most satisfying. Due to the relational style, which in insecurely attached
persons includes fear of rejection on the basis of past relationships, these indivi-
duals experience more distress (Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Weiss, 1975). Similar to
Bowlby’s (1980) description of the activation of attachment in children when they
perceive danger and distress (fear, seeking support with the attachment figure;
anger if there is no response; sadness if the attachment figure is not available in
spite of everything; rejection, distancing, and despair, which give the individual
time to accept these undesired changes and look at active possibilities that
remained, thus integrating the loss in further life), we can perceive similar emo-
tional processes in divorcing persons (Weiss, 1975). These people often feel
paralyzing fear and intense rage toward their attachment figure (ex-spouse or
partner) from whom they feel abandonment and rejection. These emotions are
followed by sadness and deep loneliness, leading to the final phase of despair in
which they perceive the world as empty, disintegrated, and dead.
In this context, it is necessary to take into account the type of attachment,
which also marks relationships and their dissolution. From this point of view,
it is possible to recognize different reactions following divorce (Davis, Shaver,
& Vernon, 2003; Sbarra & Emery, 2005). A majority of researchers link the
secure attachment style with appropriate and efficient recovery after the loss
(Vareschi & Bursik, 2005), whereas insecurely attached individuals, who were
emotionally dependent on their spouses and experienced more fear of aban-
donment during their relationship, face more problems when adapting to
divorce. On the other hand, securely attached individuals report lesser
degrees of stress during divorce and experience the situation as less threaten-
ing. They see themselves as more capable of coping with divorce and use
more efficient problem-solving strategies (e.g., better negotiation strategies
and argumentation). As a result, these individuals experience less physical
and mental health problems after divorce (Birnbaum, Orr, Milkulincer, &
Florian, 1997). They report more pleasant feelings when they are alone and
with others, have less problems with ex-spouses or partners, and can forgive
the ex-spouse or partner more easily (Mazor, Batiste-Hare, & Gampel, 1998).
After divorce, they use more positive parenting methods, which can help
children to better adapt to their parents’ divorce (Roberson, Sabo, & Wickel,
2011; Vareschi & Bursik, 2005). Partners’ relationship can therefore be
understood as a very significant form of attachment bond, with negative
consequences when the bond is broken, and with more difficulty coping if
the individuals are already burdened by the heritage of insecure attachment.
 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 165

Attachment injury as relational trauma and divorce

Insecure attachment styles are also formed during traumatic experiences that
were, due to parents’ unavailability and unresponsiveness and dysfunctional
relationship with the primary attachment figure, inappropriately regulated.
Unlike other traumatic experiences (e.g., illnesses, physical assaults, acci-
dents), we can define such relationships as relational trauma, its source
being another person, usually a close person whose intention is to hurt or
to abuse the other to reach his or her goals regardless of consequences.
Relational trauma is a specific category of psychological trauma that includes
the loss of an interpersonal bond with a significant other, in childhood
usually with parents (or another attachment figure). It is a loss of trust as a
result of various types of neglect and violence; it leaves deep wounds because
it usually begins in childhood, when an individual has not yet developed
appropriate mechanisms of coping with trauma and is therefore highly
vulnerable (Schore, 2003).
In a divorce situation, basic painful feelings experienced from past relation-
ships (insecure attachment) can be reenacted and felt, which furthermore
weakens an individual’s ability to successfully cope with divorce because one
feels that the worst things are continually (compulsively) repeated in one’s life
(Simonič, 2014). Every divorce is in a way traumatic; many define the theory of
attachment as the theory of trauma because it pays attention to extreme emo-
tional turmoil and feelings of isolation and separation, especially in the moments
of increased vulnerability—which is certainly the case during divorce. Insecurely
attached persons will experience divorce, which can be described as the reenact-
ment of the so-called attachment injury, as more difficult; they will have at their
disposal less efficient strategies of coping with this vulnerability, which they
experience as the repetition of painful basic affects from past attachment rela-
tionships (e.g., betrayal, abandonment, rejection, guilt, inadequacy, sadness, etc.;
Vareschi & Bursik, 2005).
Attachment injury denotes the experience of rejection and betrayal of trust in
a crucial moment when a person is in distress and needs support. In this sense,
we speak of relational trauma, where an individual in times of emotional crisis or
vulnerability does not get the support from the significant other—the support
one needs and instinctively seeks, which is certainly the case during the divorce
process. We can understand it as a specific type of betrayal experienced in
interpersonal relationships, especially between spouses or partners. It is suspen-
sion or violation of trust, when the partner is not available or responsive when a
person needs emotional support and care one expects from the attachment
figure (Johnson, Makinen, & Millikin, 2001).
The concept of attachment injury does not focus on specific contents of a
painful event; rather, it deals with the aspects of the meaning of attachment
in such events (e.g., infidelity). The event breaks a natural tendency to seek
166 B. SIMONIČ AND N. RIJAVEC KLOBUČAR

the care, shelter, and closeness of the attachment figure in times of distress,
which is the instinctive way of affect regulation (Bowlby, 1988; Johnson,
2002). Difficult affective states thus remain nonregulated or are regulated in
some other (dysfunctional) way. Divorce is therefore a relational trauma that
can be understood as a radical attachment injury in a relationship where it
will not be able to be healed; at the same time, it means opening or “repeat-
ing” older wounds, a consequence of deep attachment injury in childhood
and primary relationships.

Coping with divorce and processing of attachment injury in relational

family therapy
In this context, divorce can be understood as one of the events on the
continuum of an individual’s experience of attachment injury, which is
now being reawakened and reenacted. From the point of view of relational
family therapy, in this vulnerability there lies a possibility to encounter and
process the basic affect; otherwise, the individual remains stuck in the vicious
circle of pain and relational wound that prevents access to functional
responses (Gostečnik & Repič, 2009).
The relational family therapy model focuses on the recognition of
pathological relationships in which an individual keeps being caught up
without being able to change them, therefore compulsively repeating them
(reenacting of attachment injury). This relational wound often prevents
the individual from gaining access to functional responses. One’s psycho-
logical structure is formed on the basis of past relationships of attach-
ment, which have begun in one’s primary family. In the case of
pathological relationships or traumatic experiences, this structure can be
dysfunctional (e.g., low self-esteem, feelings of incompetence, learned
helplessness, and many other defense mechanisms or, according to the
relational family therapy model, affective psychological constructs), which
only reinforce an individual’s belief that nothing can be done or changed
(Gostečnik, Repič, & Cvetek, 2009). These relationships are usually based
on basic affect, which is the foundation of all relationships and creates an
atmosphere to which all relationships are attuned. One needs to become
aware of basic affect so that one understands what is happening in the
first place (Gostečnik & Repič, 2009). Relational family therapy
approaches the discovering of basic affect, which drives relationship
dynamics on three levels: systemic, interpersonal, and intrapsychic. Basic
affect permeates all relationships on all levels. Divorce, too, is a specific
reflection of this basic affect. Relational family therapy therefore reawa-
kens these relationships, rendering them familiar, and then tries—within a
new relationship between therapist and client—to change these interper-
sonal relationship patterns. This means that, first, we need to find the
 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 167

basic affect; second, change the basic system of affect regulation; and
finally, find a way for affect regulation to become more functional
(Gostečnik, Simonič, & Pate, 2015).
In our case study, we focus on the analysis and demonstration of facing
and processing attachment injury in a client in the process of divorce during
relational family therapy.

Method
Research strategy: Case study
Case study is a qualitative research method giving an integrative description
of a case and enabling its analysis; that is, the description of the case
characteristics and the description of the process in which these character-
istics are revealed (Wedding & Corsini, 2014). The case is described and
analyzed to discover interaction variables, structures, patterns, and laws, or to
assess how successful the work was or how the development progressed
(Verschuren, 2003), giving a comprehensive description and analysis of an
individual or a small number of individuals. This approach studies whole
phenomena, processes, and procedures by means of studying individual
cases, when the aim is a holistic and in-depth research. The focus is not on
revealing generalizable truths or searching for cause–effect relations, but
rather on exploration and description (Golden, 2003).
In our case, a descriptive informal singular case study approach was used,
with the focus on an individual participant, rather than on a group average.
We explored what the divorcee experienced in the therapeutic process
according to a relational family therapy model regarding the processing of
her attachment wound, which was repeated with her divorce.

Data collection procedure

Data for analysis were collected retrospectively. After the decision was made on
the research question (what the divorcee experienced in the therapeutic process
according to the relational family therapy model regarding the processing of her
attachment wound), we examined the cases of different therapy treatments in
the past in which we had gathered relevant data, and chose a case with an
obvious history of wounded attachment and divorce. Data were collected from
the notes of the case and audio recordings of therapy sessions, which were
obtained after client’s consent, providing therapy treatment in accordance
with ethical codes. Therapy consisted of 12 1-hr weekly sessions with the client.
168 B. SIMONIČ AND N. RIJAVEC KLOBUČAR

Data analysis procedure

A comprehensive and in-depth examination of the case was done. We
examined the notes of therapy sessions, made by therapist to monitor the
process, and analyzed audio recordings of the therapy process. Attention was
paid to patterns, the descriptions of topics that revealed relational trauma
and attachment wound, and the interventions and changes that emerged as a
result of interventions. On this basis, a written description of the whole
process was created, with the findings about the therapy case regarding the
processing of attachment wound in the face of divorce by means of the
relational family therapy model.

Results
The client’s State at the beginning of therapy treatment
The female client who was included in therapy was 34. She had left her
husband 2 months prior to the beginning of treatment; the divorce process
was not yet over. Before that, they had been together 10 years, and married
for 6 years. They had no children. The client had lived in her own flat. The
relationship had finally dissolved because the wife had been physically abused
by the husband, which she had reported to the police.

The client’s experience of relational trauma and attachment injury during

divorce
The client wanted to begin therapy because she felt that during the divorce
process, she faced not only very challenging formal circumstances, but also
severe psychological pain and heavy affective states. For her it was the most
painful that, in spite of her efforts and belief that, somehow, the relationship
would improve, it deteriorated. She felt quite defeated and desperate at the
repeated scenario of being rejected, which had accompanied her in various
relationships throughout her life in spite of the fact that her outlook on the
future was naively optimistic.
She had been married for 6 years. Even before the wedding she had not
been sure that this had been the right decision; however, something had
drawn her to this man: She said he had reminded her of her father. The
husband was highly manipulative. They had lived with his parents. He had
not been able to develop appropriate boundaries with his parents, and
consequently they frequently interfered with their marriage. The couple
had started to grow apart, and there were difficulties with conception. In
conflicts, the client had experienced a lot of harshness from her husband, as
well as physical and psychological violence. All the time the client had
believed that they would be able to save the relationship with true endeavor,
 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 169

persistence, and forgiveness. She experienced the turning point after she had
had an accident when in spite of her injuries and distress and hope to find a
safe haven with her husband, she only got humiliation, contempt, and
insensitivity. It was then that she felt she could not go on. She decided to
leave him.

Emotions accompanying the challenges of divorce

In spite of the steps she had already taken, at the beginning of treatment the
client was still quite entrapped in the thinking about the relationship,
although she was firm in her decision to get divorced. One could say that
emotionally, she was in a state of shock; she talked a lot, as if her words had
been learned by heart. There were plenty of chaotic effects that could not be
truly felt yet, as if the real pain was still buried somewhere deep. She felt as if
she would only now begin to really live, and at the same time she was afraid
of it. The defense against this fear was her belief, which was almost naive,
that if she had suffered so much, now she certainly deserved something
better. Thus she was repeating her naive conviction, which did save her
throughout all the abuses she had experienced, but also maintained the
patterns of violence, the belief that from now on, it would certainly get
better. In this way, she dissociated from the true severity of those events.

Past abuses and traumas

The client had been familiar with relational wounds since her childhood. Her
parents divorced when she was 13. She stayed with her mother together with
her younger brother. Her mother psychologically manipulated her with humi-
liation and ceaseless provoking of the feelings of inferiority; the daughter was
also frequently and violently physically punished. As a child, she was permeated
by guilt; she felt that her parents had married only because her mother had
gotten pregnant with her. Consequently, the client had always felt that she had
never been good enough, regardless of what she had done; she was at all times
accompanied by a gnawing feeling that it was her duty to take care of something
(something that was, actually, never under her control).

Therapeutic process
The treatment was conducted according to the relational family therapy
model. The main intervention in this model is to discover dysfunctional
behavioral patterns and beliefs that often serve as a defense (affective psy-
chological construct), and to examine which basic affects on an intrapsychic
level drive these behavioral and thinking patterns. Therefore, at the begin-
ning of the therapeutic process it was necessary to explore, at systemic and
170 B. SIMONIČ AND N. RIJAVEC KLOBUČAR

interpersonal levels, past incidents, and gradually progress toward the client
feeling genuine pain. As mentioned before, at the beginning the client
showed, at least on the superficial level, a lot of naive, idealistic faith in a
better future (dissociation): Consequently, together with the therapist, she
gently proceeded toward the real pain and anxiety, searching for more
genuine feelings. They first encountered deep fear of future and potential
abuse and rejection. When addressing the fact that in the past she repeatedly
let others abuse her, the client got in touch with shame; she felt embarrassed
that she had done this, but insisted that this had been a better option than to
be alone. Her thinking that a relationship could succeed even when she had
been brutally beaten had been based on a misguided, naive belief that had she
forgiven her husband, he would have loved her and she would not be
rejected. In this way she had been repeating the fundamental pattern she
had brought from her family, the pattern marked with feelings of inferiority
and neglect, which she had tried to transcend with boundless adaptability,
patience, and compliance, which guaranteed a feeling of belonging, even
though in a way she had not deserved. Without this submissiveness she felt
that she did not deserve to even exist (guilt due to her parents’ “suffering” in
their relationship as they had married because of her).
The deepest connection with pain within the safe therapeutic environment,
where the true attachment injury showed, was brought about by the awareness
that she actually did not have—had never had—anybody or anything that would
provide security and shelter for her. She faced her feelings of rejection and
sadness when realizing what she was willing to do to remain in touch with her
close people (parents, partner). Sadness, above all, was the basic affect she kept
running from; the realization that nobody really loved and empathized with her
was too painful.
This realization was a very hard one. In her own words, “As if I was throwing
my whole life in a barrel, and if now I look into it, there is nothing … only a black
hole where everything is sucked in and lost, where I have always been drawn in
and I couldn’t move on.” Facing this truth (the basic affect of sadness) was
liberating: She hit the bottom that she could push off from because she no longer
needed to escape into imagining things to be better than they were. She began to
feel healthy anger, which gave her the decisiveness for new steps, and she
realized that she was the victim, not the perpetrator. She was justified to get
something else, not what she got. She realized that the relationships in which a
child naturally searches for the deepest security were the most dangerous.
Having faced this duality, she had lost the sense of true danger; she said it was
“as if I had lost direction: I withdrew from those who wished me good, and
where I experienced pain I thought that was good.” In the safe therapeutic
relationship, she also explored aspects of self-esteem and began to realize her
preciousness. When she saw what she had been deprived of as a little girl,
although she had been entitled to it, she realized that she could now give this
 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 171

to herself as an adult woman: She could love herself, and she is precious and
worthy of love.

The conclusion of the therapeutic process

At the end of treatment, the client experienced significantly more calm and
was more in touch with reality. She felt uncertain about the future; however,
this fear was not crippling: It was an indication that she would be able to
listen to it and consequently protect herself from potential abuse and set
appropriate boundaries in relationships. She believed in herself and her
worth, so there was no more risk that she would respond to this fear in the
same way as she had in the past, when she had feared rejection so much that
she had persisted in abusive relationships. Now she was in touch with her
vulnerability, aware that she had to protect it.

Discussion
In our case study we can see that when the client was facing divorce, deep
wounds began to reawaken, surpassing mere formal aspects of divorce and
revealing a deeper relational trauma. In her childhood, the client did not
know safe and loving relationships. She developed an insecure attachment
style: incessant, urgent, and anxious seeking of security in relationships,
which, however, again and again disappoint, providing this form of connec-
tion (Schore, 2003). The client experienced the same pattern in the intimate
relationship with her partner, in which she persisted in spite of abuse,
because she had this searching for connection “regardless of the price”
engrained in her psycho-organic structure. The more she was seeking this
connection, the more betrayal she experienced through a repeated attach-
ment injury trauma with alternating feelings of abandonment, disappoint-
ment, inadequacy, and guilt. Attachment injury is a specific type of betrayal
where trust is lost when one expects emotional support and care (Johnson
et al., 2001), which the client expected in her distress after a traffic accident
when she was physically and psychologically vulnerable. In the context of
relational family therapy, we speak of repetition compulsion and repetitive
creation of conflict situations, traumas, and behavioral models in the client’s
personal and interpersonal behavior, thinking, and emotions. On this basis,
individuals interpret current events that remind them of the past through the
lens of past experiences (Gostečnik et al., 2009).
Encountering the fact that the she had lived in a vicious circle of repetitive
betrayals enabled the client to gradually get in touch with dissociated feelings,
on the basis of which she had subconsciously built a defensive affective
psychological construct, a conglomerate of defense mechanisms that protect
an individual’s psychological structure against the intrusion of destructive
172 B. SIMONIČ AND N. RIJAVEC KLOBUČAR

affects (Gostečnik & Repič, 2009). In the past, the client had psychologically
survived, so that she overlooked her partner’s behavior, believing that by
means of effort and always giving him a new chance she would become
loved, which only kept her in the role of a victim. When she faced the reality
of the history of betrayal, she encountered the basic affect (in her case,
sadness), which she could accept and started to regulate in a different,
conscious, and more functional way (instead of running from it, she experi-
enced it as an injustice she did not need to tolerate any more).

Conclusion
The case analysis confirms research findings that show that insecurely attached
persons experience divorce, which can be compared to a new attachment
injury, as more difficult than others, and they have less efficient coping strate-
gies to face the injury; they relive painful basic affects known from their past
attachment relationships (e.g., betrayal, rejection, guilt, inadequacy, sadness),
which they experience as relational trauma. From the perspective of relational
family therapy, this vulnerability opened the possibility of facing and processing
the basic affect; otherwise, the client would remain stuck in the vicious circle of
pain and relational wounds that prevent access to functional responses. In the
process of divorce, the recognition of attachment system activation is of the
utmost importance, because it enables understanding of different regulation
processes and strategies used by people with different attachment styles to adapt
to the circumstances of divorce. Attachment, separation, and loss are core issues
addressed by attachment theory, and the reflection on the divorce process from
an attachment perspective is important. A therapeutic relationship in which
aspects of attachment are addressed makes it possible for the client to recognize
and evaluate his or her pain, which is especially severe in the case of dissolved
relationships. In this context, the client can begin to differently experience
relationships and people around him or her, because in the therapeutic relation-
ship psychological structures, and therefore relationships, are transformed.
Therapy also helps articulate and shed light on painful relationships that are
compulsively repeated, also through the repetition of attachment injury.

Funding
The results of this work were obtained within Project No. J5-6825 financed by the Slovenian
Research Agency from the state budget.

ORCID
Barbara Simonič http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5842-2017
Nataša Rijavec Klobučar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5626-8060
 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 173

References
Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 62, 1269–1287. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01269.x
Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith
(1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355–370. doi:10.1037/0893-
3200.15.3.355
Birnbaum, G. E., Orr, I., Milkulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1997). When marriage breaks up—
Does attachment style contribute to coping and mental health? Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 14, 643–654. doi:10.1177/0265407597145004
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety, and anger. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent–child attachment and healthy human development.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Cherlin, A. J., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & McRae, C. (1998). Effects of parental divorce on
mental health throughout the life course. American Sociological Review, 63, 239–249.
doi:10.2307/2657325
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2003). Physical, emotional, and behavioral
reactions to breaking up: The roles of gender, age, emotional involvement, and attachment
style. Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 871–884. doi:10.1177/0146167203029007006
Demo, D. H., Fine, M. A., & Ganong, L. H. (2000). Divorce as a family stressor. In P. C.
McKenry & S. J. Price (Eds.), Families and change: Coping with stressful events and
transitions (pp. 101–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Erzar, T., & Kompan Erzar, K. (2011). The idea of mutual affect. International Journal of
Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 3, 242–254. doi:10.1002/aps.108
Feeney, B. C., & Monin, J. K. (2008). An attachment-theoretical perspective on divorce. In J.
Casidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment (2nd ed., pp. 934–957). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1996). Adult attachment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments,
emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4,
132–154. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.4.2.132
Golden, L. (2003). Case studies in marriage and family therapy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gostečnik, C., & Repič, T. (2009). Relational marital paradigm. American Journal of
Psychotherapy, 63(1), 1–12.
Gostečnik, C., Repič, T., & Cvetek, R. (2009). Potential curative space in relational family
therapy. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 20(1), 46–59. doi:10.1080/
08975350802716491
Gostečnik, C., Simonič, B., & Pate, T. (2015). Relational family therapy in theory and
practice. In E. Osewska & J. Stala (Eds.), The contemporary family: Local and European
perspectives (pp. 95–109). Krakow, Poland: The Pontifical University of John Paul II in
Krakow Press.
Halperin, S. M. (2006). Family therapy for the postdivorce adjustment of women left by their
husbands for another woman. In C. A. Everett & R. E. Lee (Eds.), When marriages fail (pp.
247–259). New York, NY: Haworth.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for fesearch on
close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1–22. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1
Hetherington, E. M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse: Divorce reconsidered.
New York, NY: Norton.
174 B. SIMONIČ AND N. RIJAVEC KLOBUČAR

Hirschberger, G., Srivastava, S., Marsh, P., Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (2009). Attachment,
marital satisfaction, and divorce during the first fifteen years of parenthood. Personal
Relationships, 16, 401–420. doi:10.1111/pere.2009.16.issue-3
Johnson, S. M. (2002). Emotionally focused couple therapy with trauma survivors:
Strengthening attachment bonds. New York, NY: Guilford.
Johnson, S. M., Makinen, J. A., & Millikin, J. W. (2001). Attachment injuries in couple
relationships: A new perspective on impasses in couples therapy. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 27, 145–155. doi:10.1111/jmft.2001.27.issue-2
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment styles and close relationships: A four-year
prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1, 123–142. doi:10.1111/pere.1994.1.issue-2
Määttä, K. (2011). The throes and relief of divorce. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 52(6),
1–20. doi:10.1080/10502556.2011.592425
Margulies, S. (2007). Working with divorcing spouses. New York, NY: Guilford.
Mazor, A., Batiste-Hare, P., & Gampel, Y. (1998). Divorcing spouses’ coping patterns,
attachment bonding and forgiveness processes in the post-divorce experience. Journal of
Divorce & Remarriage, 29(3–4), 65–81. doi:10.1300/J087v29n03_04
Newman, B., & Newman, P. (2003). Development through life: A psychosocial approach.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Pryor, J., & Rodgers, B. (2001). Children in changing families: Life after parental separation.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Rijavec Klobučar, N., & Simonič, B. (2016). Risk factors for divorce in Slovenia: A qualitative
study of divorced persons’ experience. Journal of Family Studies. Advance online publica-
tion. doi:10.1080/13229400.2016.1176592
Roberson, P. N. E., Sabo, M., & Wickel, K. (2011). Internal working models of attachment
and postdivorce coparent relationships. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 52, 187–201.
doi:10.1080/10502556.2011.569442
Robinson, M. (1991). Family transformation through divorce and remarriage: A systematic
approach. London, UK: Routledge.
Sbarra, D. A., & Emery, R. E. (2005). The emotional sequelae of nonmarital relationship
dissolution: Analysis of change and intraindividual variability over time. Personal
Relationships, 12, 213–232. doi:10.1111/pere.2005.12.issue-2
Sbarra, D. A., & Nietert, P. J. (2009). Divorce and death: Forty years of the Charleston Heart
Study. Psychological Science, 20(1), 107–113. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02252.x
Schore, A. N. (2003). Affect regulation and the repair of the self. New York, NY: Norton.
Simonič, B. (2014). Coping with divorce and relational family therapy. Family Forum, 4, 203–222.
Simonič, B., & Rijavec Klobučar, N. (2016). Experiencing positive religious coping in the
process of divorce: A qualitative study. Journal of Religion and Health, 55(3), 1–11.
Vareschi, C. G., & Bursik, K. (2005). Attachment style differences in the parental interactions
and adaptation patterns of divorcing parents. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 42(3–4),
15–32. doi:10.1300/J087v42n03_02
Verschuren, P. J. M. (2003). Case study as a research strategy: Some ambiguities and
opportunities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6, 121–139.
doi:10.1080/13645570110106154
Wang, H., & Amato, P. R. (2000). Predictors of divorce adjustment: Stressors, resources, and
definition. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 655–668. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2000.00655.x
Wedding, D., & Corsini, R. J. (2014). Case studies in psychotherapy. Stamford, CT: Cengage
Learning.
Weiss, R. (1975). Marital separation. New York, NY: Basic Books.