Former Spouses Exiting Role-Identities

Abstract

Understanding role-identity exit is as important as understanding entrance inlo roles and emergence of role-identities since individuals frequently abandon and lose their roles. This study explores the process of exiting role-identities chat individuals experience during the divorce and postdivorce interactions. Results indicate a different role-identity exit process for initiators than for noniniuators, although members of each group passed through four stages. These different processes are described, and variables affecting h e role-identity exit process, such as degree of voluntariness, degree of awareness, and h e degree of control are briefly discussed. [Article copies availablefmtn The Harwrrh Document Delivery Senice: 1-800-342-9678.]

Roles in the Divorce Process and Identity Strength

“…Vaughn (1986) has described in some detail the process of dissolving a marriage as experienced by the initiator and the other partner. Duran-Aydintug (1995), too, details very different experiences for initiators and non-initiators associated with degrees of voluntariness, awareness, and control. However, a conceptual problem in the divorce literature concerns the definition of exit-roles.…”

Incomplete Role Exit and the Alimony Reform Movement

“…This collective action frame emerged in 28 of 182 narratives and revolved around their feeling of being “mentally imprisoned” in some way by their alimony obligations. In the case of divorce, many individuals simply want out of the marital institution, of which mental disengagement is a fundamental part of the process (Duran‐Aydintug ). However, in multiple cases, men reported that they could not psychologically “escape” as they argued that they were treated even worse than common criminals by the alimony system.…”

Rethinking Role Residual: Retired Police Officers and the Inertia of Habitus

“…According to Ebaugh, people continue to “identify” with their prior role despite significant changes in their structural position. This role residual is sometimes referred to as a “hangover identity” (Baker, Dalla, and Williamson 2010; Damman and Henkens 2017; Duran‐Aydintug 1996; Ebaugh 1988) or a “lingering identity” (Reitzes and Mutran 2006).…”

“…Ebaugh's work has inspired role residual research among former athletes (Drahota and Eitzen 1998; Stier 2007), religious defectors (Faulkner 2017; Wright 1987), spouses (Duran‐Aydintug 1996), hate group members (Simi et al. 2017), gang members (Decker, Pyrooz, and Moule 2014), doctors (Spehar, Frich, and Kjekshus 2015), and retirees (Damman and Henkens 2017; Reitzes and Mutran 2006).…”

“…In short, because Ebaugh's work does not theorize the fundamental mechanics of (reflexive) practice, it cannot present a sufficiently reductive explanation of why and how role residual occurs. But Ebaugh is not alone in this regard as others simply state role residual occurs when an individual exits a role that has been central to his or her identity (see Drahota and Eitzen 1998; Duran‐Aydintug 1996; Spehar et al. 2015; Torkelson 2010).…”