Thesis 1st Draft

PSYCHOLOGICAL PREDICTORS AND OUTCOMES OF
DISENFRANCHISED GRIEF AFTER BREAKUP AMONG UNIVERSITY

STUDENTS
CHAPTER I
Introduction
A universal response to loss is grief. Depending on things like personal

preferences, the relationship a person had with the departed entity, or cultural
influences, people show grief in different ways. Certain losses are more easily mourned
while others are more likely to result in disenfranchisement (Doka, 2002, 2008). When
people who have lost someone appear to be grieving differently than expected or when
the occurrence of loss is not acknowledged, they may encounter stigmatizing social
relationship by society as deserving of grief. Individuals who are mourning and fulfil
the description of "disenfranchised grief" are thus unable to adequately acknowledge
or communicate their experience (Doka & Aber, 1989a).
Erikson's (1950) theory's two developmental stages Identity vs. Role Confusion
(12 to 18 years of age) and Intimacy vs. Isolation (18 to 40 years of age) capture the
stage of emerging adulthood experienced by college students. Erikson's psychosocial
model was enlarged by Arnett (2000) to add emerging adulthood as a developmental
stage, which he defined as the time from the end of high school to late in one's thirties.
Establishing and maintaining romantic relationships is a crucial effort during this stage
of maturation and is frequently seen in the college setting (Kan & Cares, 2006). Failure
to build rewarding relationships may result in isolation, loneliness, or depression
(Walsh et al., 2010).
The majority of people will end a relationship in their life at some point, as it
takes a lot of time for the people to discover someone with whom they can create a long
term bond (Morris & Reiber, 2011). Even while relationship breakdowns are common,
particularly for young adults (Sprecher & Fehr, 1998), they frequently cause emotional
emotions like grief, worry, and rage as well as physical symptoms like loss of appetite
and difficulty falling asleep. Even while the termination of a romantic relationship
solitary might be upsetting, the degree of upheaval can differ based on the sort of
breakup technique employed and how the breakup process as a whole went.
Within the grief literature the loss after the breakup among the college students
was also studied (Cooley et al., 2014). The students who have gone through a breakup
phase or have lost someone, have indicated problems in physical, interpersonal,
behavioural, emotional and cognitive dimension as a result of losses that are both
related and unrelated to death (Neimeyer et al., 2008). In particular, college students
frequently exhibit mental health issues like anxiety, depression, isolation.(Davis et al.,
2003).
An unusual situation when many people are making the move to college is
emerging maturity. According to Cox et al., (2015), more college students are grieving
than was previously thought. They estimate that 30 to 36% of college students are
experiencing grief for the first time, and that over 60% of students aged 20 and older
had suffered a loss since beginning their studies. College students who have gone
through breakup have not gotten much attention in literature, despite the fact that grief
and bereavement are huge fields (Balk, 2001). High school students frequently express
identical mourning symptoms when going through breakup phase despite the fact that
some of these symptoms are death-related losses (Gold et al., 2000, 2001). Students
who had experienced losses unrelated to death specifically indicated mental health
issues, bodily symptoms, and negative thoughts about the loss. Individuals were more
likely to identify losses unrelated to death as the biggest loss they had suffered in the
previous 12 months Cooley et al. (2010).
In the context of Cooley et al.'s (2010) study, Cohen's (1999) initial findings
may not come as a surprise. Students anticipated that they would experience similar
levels of distress when comparing their hypothetical grief responses to losses that were
(a) related to death and (b) unrelated to death. Students supported higher levels of
disenfranchisement when examining hypothetical non-death losses than when thinking
about losses related to death. Students specifically stated that they expect to not be
recognised by others for loss that is non death related and that they are less likely to ask
for help from peers, family, or professionals. According to numerous studies
(ReyesRodrguez et al., 2013), a substantial source of stress for college students is when
an intimate relationship ends. College students specifically mention negative physical
and mental reactions to breakups, such as immunological suppression,
psychopathology, and feelings of worry and sadness (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001).
Disenfranchised Grief
Disenfranchised sorrow is stated as "grief that persons experience when they

incur a loss that cannot be openly acknowledged, publicly mourned, or socially
supported" by Doka and Aber (1989a). Griever may encounter social situations that
lead to perceptions of stigmatisation. The stigmatisation of sorrow is consistent with
characteristics of disenfranchised grief, such as the griever being ignored, the griever
post-loss actions and emotions being dismissed and denial of the significance of the
loss (Doka, 2002, 2008). Many of the examples given do so because the research on
disenfranchised grieving primarily follows an individualistic model. The experience of
disenfranchised sorrow, meanwhile, can also apply to people from different cultures
who do not conform to the popularly recognised conventions of their society when it
comes to grieving.
Process of grief
According to American research, a person's usual grieving process after a loss

starts with intense grief, which appears as a phase of desire, fatigue and constant regret
of the loss (Shear, 2015). According to Shear and colleagues (2013), uncomplicated
grief often replaces acute grieving as the default integrated grief response. To put it
another way, as people get through the early and frequently powerful emotions of loss,
grieving eventually transforms into a tolerable and less raw part of their self-narrative.
According to the severity of symptoms, intense grieving for loss after years has passed
can now be classified as either complicated or non-complicated grief (Cohen & Hoffner,
2016; Crunk et al., 2017).
According to the DSM-5, this type of complicated sorrow, also known as

Persistent Complex Bereavement Disorder, affects about 10% of people who
experience acute grief (Kersting et al., 2011). few signs of acute grief are rage,
bitterness, depression, isloation, unable to find pleasure in life and avoiding or focusing
on loss (Horowitz et al., 2003). A diagnosis of a more serious psychiatric problems,
such as post-traumatic stress disorder or major depressive disorder, may be made for
people who have been given the difficult grief label due to increased symptomology
(Shear, 2012). Contrarily, a different perspective contends that’ by categorizing grief as
difficult or uncomplicated, it changes from being a normal response to death and loss
to taking on a pathological perspective (Hibberd, 2013).
Symptoms of grief
The four main categories of grief symptoms are cognitive, emotional, physical
and behavioral. Individual symptomology varies from person to person.
Cognitive. Increased rumination, denial, or bewilderment are a few frequently

mentioned cognitive symptoms. After a loss, people may feel as though their reality and
worldview have been fully destroyed. As a result, they may be uncertain about the
significance of the loss and how it has affected their personal identity (Neimeyer et al.,
2006). Greater levels of distress are substantially correlated with intrusive memories,
unfavourable thought patterns, and cognitive avoidance in college students (del
Palacio-González et al., 2017).
Emotional. Numbness, worry, guilt, melancholy, perplexity, and rage are only
a few examples of emotional reactions (Worden, 2018). College students who have just
broken up with someone else could also feel betrayed, which is directly linked to higher
distress (Field et al., 2009). However, not all the emotions mentioned by the students
after leaving their partners are unfavourable; some students express relief, enjoyment,
and liberation (Carter et al., 2018).
Physical. Lastly, grief is typically accompanied by a variety of physical

responses or sensations. Reduced energy, physical discomfort, weight fluctuations,
chest discomfort, changes in appetite, weariness, and a sense of derealization are a few
of these that may occur (Hardison et al., 2005; Rando, 1991). Immune suppression,
physical disease, and a higher risk of suicide are other physical symptoms that might
result from the breakup (Davis et al., 2003).
Behavioral. According to Hardison and colleagues (2005) and grief can also
cause behavioural responses such disturbed sleep, social disengagement, restlessness,
or the physical avoidance of loss triggers. Breakups are also linked to behaviours that
have an adverse effect on a student's academic career, such as increased use of alcohol
or drug use, a lack of engagement, and poor academic performance, which increases
the risk of getting withdraw from school (Cupit et al., 2016; Miller & Servaty-Seib,
2016).
Stigmatization
Although there are many stigmatizing circumstances and experiences, in the
factor of grief, the stigma appears from certain loss events (Daniel & Westerman,
2017). It may be possible to describe stigmatisation within the context of grief using
framework of disenfranchised grief. This framework can also help us understand how
societal norms affect how people experience and perceive sorrow (Pillai-Friedman &
Ashline, 2014). Two well-known forms of stigma that is perceived stigma and
internalized stigma, can be used to understand how stigma affects bereavement
(Corrigan & Watson, 2002). According to Pryor and Reeder (2011), the degree to which
someone is publicly stigmatized determines where they fall on a continuum of
perceived stigma. According to Dovidio and colleagues (2000), stigmatised encounters
can be overt through rejection, invalidation, and avoidance. Experiences may include
instances where friends stop talking after the cause of the grief is discussed or when
therapists are hesitant to take on new patients who have suffered from particular
stigmatised losses. As a result of perceived stigmatization results in greater levels of
stress, social anxiety, and pessimism (Kuukali & Kuukali, 2017).
When a person adopts the unfavourable thoughts and emotions connected to

perceived stigma, internalised stigma is created as an alternative to the external source
of stigma (Pryor & Reeder, 2011). Grieving symptoms and behaviours may worsen and
last longer when a person feels that their grieving is not allowed. Additionally, grievers
may isolate themselves, underuse available resources, and come to believe that their
mourning is unacceptable (Tonkin, 2010). According to Sheehy (2012), a griever's lack
of interpersonal openness as a result of feeling stigmatised can have an impact on the
kind and quantity of support that is provided. Grieving people continue to experience
feelings of shame, invalidation, and guilt as long as society upholds these laws of
bereavement (Vogel et al., 2013).
Worden (2018) describes several responses that survivors of suicide loss or

those who have lost a loved one to suicide may encounter, such as physical avoidance
of the griever, disinterest in suicide awareness, or a lack of social support. In essence,
the more unfavourable responses a griever encounters, the more shame, guilt, and self-
blame they feel and engage in unhealthy behaviours such concealing the reason of death
(Jordan & McIntosh, 2011). Additionally, when Ferlatte and colleagues (2019) looked
at how stigma affects grieving, they discovered that suicide loss survivors internalise
the negative emotions associated with perceived stigma in order to feel abnormal in
their mourning. Findings on how stigmatisation affects grief due to suicide may also
apply to populations dealing with other loss circumstances.
According to participant endorsements (Feigelman et al., 2011; Gökler-

Danşman et al., 2017), participants often express more grief when they have been
subjected to greater stigma. Maguire and colleagues (2015) also highlighted self-blame,
guilt, and solitude as major motifs that contribute to stigmatised bereavement. The
subject of isolation was explored upon in Lee and colleagues (2002) study of a
population with HIV-AIDS. Together, their findings suggest that people with high
levels of internalised stigma also experience less acceptance from their families, are
less likely to go to support groups, and are less likely to actively seek out people who
have similar problems.
Perceived Closeness of Relationship
The perceived closeness of relationships between couples has historically been

linked to bereavement research on a regular basis. High-intensity grief reactions are
predicted by perceptions of the relationship as intimate., regardless of the relationship
category (ServatySeib & Pistole, 2007). Additionally, perceived closeness of a
relationship predicts grieving intensity more accurately than relatedness or kinship. In
a related study, Eckerd and colleagues (2016) looked at college students' reactions to
the death of a pet or a person and found that regardless of the type of loss individuals
supported, perceived closeness was the most powerful predictor of grieving.
In intimate, loving relationships, closeness and intimacy are almost

interchangeable; yet, closeness has a wider conceptual spectrum and range of
applications than intimacy (Parks & Floyd, 1996). However, the closeness of a variety
of non-intimate social connections varies significantly. For instance, although there
may be important differences between completely strangers, acquaintances, coworkers,
and casual friends, these relationships would not be considered intimate in any way..
Relationship closeness is sometimes understood to involve the depth of the emotional
connection between individuals, their level of familiarity with the other person's quirks,
or both. Both of these principles are included in the notion of interdependence. In
contrast to all-or-nothing phenomena, closeness is viewed here as a continuous idea.
Gradations can be seen in it (Aron & Fraley, 1999). According to Kelley and colleagues
(1983), relationship closeness can be thought of as varying along a single continuum,
ranging from perfectly independent strangers to individuals who are completely
connected and whose ideas, feelings, and behaviors are totally integrated.
Sense of Coherence
The degree to which people feel they have control over their lives' events, how
they perceive the world, and the significance they ascribe to their acts is reflected in
their sense of coherence. According to studies, persons who have well-built sense of
coherence are less susceptible to stressful events because they have a diverse range of
coping mechanisms at their disposal and are flexible enough to choose the best one for
the situation. Contrarily, those who lack a well-built sense of coherence might display
greater signs of stress, struggle socially, use ineffective coping techniques, and feel
lonely and socially isolated (Braun and Sagy, 2014).
Sense of coherence is how well someone manages stress. Comprehensibility,

manageability, and meaningfulness are the three components of sense of coherence
(Antonovsky, 1993). Comprehensibility, the level of interpretation of both internal and
external parameters. And it is referred to as the cognitive dimension. Manageability, the
idea that one is equipped with what is necessary to meet the needs of the stimuli
presented. It is referred to as instrumental or behavioral component. Meaningfulness.
The motivational dimension describes how much a person believes that life has
emotional significance, that at least some of the difficulties they encounter are
worthwhile of their time and effort, and that they should be viewed as challenges rather
than simply as burdens.
Post-Breakup Recovery and Personal Growth
Many research that examined at relationship dissolution have prioritised the

evaluation of breakup distress and its effects, paying less attention to possible positive
outcomes (Tashiro & Frazier, 2003). According to Sprecher (1994), people may feel
separate from their past love specifically throughout the breakdown process, and this
feeling of independence may be accompanied by pleasant feelings. Despite these
emotions, a person may still want to connect with their spouse, which could result in
even more unpleasant emotions (Cupach, 1992). Sprecher (1994) looked into how
partners in the same relationship differed in their post-breakup positive and negative
impact, providing an uncommon look at both sides of a split. Positive emotions like
love and relief were also expressed, but negative emotions like hurt, irritation,
melancholy, and loneliness were felt more strongly.
Similar to this, few studies have examined how ending a romantic relationship
might lead to beneficial improvements in one's life (Helgeson, 1994). Even though
breaking up with someone have been called one of most distressing event in life, they
also give people the chance to grow and change in positive ways, such as improvements
in interpersonal priorities and one's own perspective. The connection between breakup,
post-breakup events, and personal development has been studied in the past with
varying degrees of success. According to Buehler's (1987) research, participants who
initiated a divorce had a higher likelihood of reporting personal progress than divorce
beneficiaries. As for post-breakup personal development.
People's perceptions of the quality of their current relationships may rise as a

result of their self-growth beliefs. This forecast has indirect support from a number of
sources. Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) has underlined the important
role of growth in close relationships. Self-determination was conceptualized by Knee
and colleagues (2002) as a motive for relationship improvement. Winterheld and
Simpson (2011) found that people with a growth focus mindset perceived their
companions as more supportive and exhibited more innovative conflict resolution
behaviors. According to Patrick and colleagues (2007), Self determination theory also
emphasizes how personal relationships can satisfy a person's need for growth. The
satisfaction of such needs could result in fruitful relational outcomes. In fact, fulfillment
of self-growth requirements results in satisfaction, commitments and more
understanding in relationship.
Relationship Thoughts
When we think of anything, we extrapolate our feelings to how we are feeling

right now (Tulving, 2002). Because of this, seeing a happy event typically makes you
feel better, while envisioning a sad one typically makes you feel worse (Mather, 2006).
recalling a positive memory boosts mood, whereas persons who prefer to think solely
negative experience depression (Josephson, 1996). A significant number of studies on
relationship breakups have made the assumption that the content of previous
relationships is exclusively negatively valanced. Despite the fact that research
(Fagundes, 2012) has demonstrated that remembering the breakup and past relationship
is linked with greater anxiety, discomfort, distress and poor emotional adjustment.
According to Fiske and Taylor (1984), people regard events that they believe
they have some influence over as less stressful than those that look or are out of their
control. Therefore, whether someone breaks up or was the person with whom someone
had broke up, might help anticipate how severe their reaction will be when they go
through a split. According to a number of studies, people who disengaged from a
relationship experienced less breakup distress than those who were the recipients of the
disengagement (Morris et al., 2015). However, Fine and Sacher (1997) observed that
the male persons with whom their partner have broken up experience greater level of
distress while Simpson (1990) observed no distinction between the amount of distress
by the person who terminate the relation or the person with whom someone broke up.
Additionally, while breakups that entail an open discussion provide some measure of
closure on both parties, ghosting breakups provide the disengager closure and control
while keeping the recipient in a state of insecurity.
Breakup Distress
The majority of people will end a relationship in their life at some point, as it
takes a lot of time for the people to discover someone with whom they can create a long
term bond (Morris & Reiber, 2011). Even while relationship breakdowns are common,
particularly for young adults, they frequently cause emotional emotions like grief,
worry, and rage as well as physical symptoms like loss of appetite and difficulty falling
asleep. Even while the termination of a romantic relationship solitary might be
upsetting, the degree of upheaval can differ based on the sort of breakup technique
employed and how the breakup process as a whole went (Sprecher & Fehr, 1998).
The level of compassion that breakup recipients attribute to various breakup

strategies varies. Sprecher et al. (2010) discovered that manipulation, distant
communication and avoidance were the breakup strategies that were deemed to be the
least compassionate. Ghosting may be viewed as an unkind breakup tactic because it
involves avoiding people and cutting off established electronically mediated
communication channels, which indirectly ends a relationship.
Depression
Mourning has such a significant impact on students' lives, it is crucial to

research grief in the setting of college. Sleep difficulties, intrusive thoughts, depressive
or anxious sensations, alterations in one's drug or food habits, unsatisfactory academic
progress and immunological and endocrine dysfunction are only a few of the symptoms
that are frequently experienced (Field, 2013).
Depression is a low mental condition characterized by misery, trouble paying

attention and thinking, problems sleeping, a significant difference in appetite increase
or decrease, and feelings of grief, anguish, and in some cases, suicide thoughts. Short-
term or long-term depression are both possible (de Zwart et al. 2019). According to the
WHO, depression will overtake heart disease as the second most common cause of
depressive symptoms within the next ten years. Twelve men and one out of every five
men are estimated to suffer from depression. In addition to adults, 5% of children and
2% of younger students also suffer from the negative impacts of depression, which are
mostly unrecognized. Despite the common perception that every mental illness is
associated with depression, it has been the most obvious reason why people visit a
psychiatrist (Kessler et al., 2003).
According to studies on cognition, students report having more intrusive and

unpleasant thoughts, which are strongly linked to the grieving process following a
breakup (Boelen & Reijntjes, 2009). According to researches, the closer a relationship
was reported to be, the longer it lasted, and the amount of time since it ended, the more
grieving and distressed people felt. Additionally, after the end of an intimate partner
connection, young individuals may later encounter mental health problems including
depression. (Davis, Shaver, & Vernon, 2003). Specific loss events are more frequently
linked to stigmatised reactions than categories of disenfranchised grieving. Many works
of literature analyze loss caused by suicide at the nexus of grieving and stigma. The
extent of the sorrow phase and the unpleasant reactions of friends and relatives are
strongly positively correlated, according to research on stigma and suicide deaths
(Hanschmidt et al., 2016).
Worden (2018) describes several responses that survivors of suicide loss or

those who have lost a loved one to suicide may encounter, such as physical avoidance
of the griever, disinterest in suicide awareness, or a lack of support from friends and
family. In essence, the more unfavorable responses a griever encounters, the more
shame, guilt, and self-blame they feel and engage in unhealthy behaviors like
concealing the reason of death (Jordan & McIntosh, 2011). Additionally, when Ferlatte
and colleagues (2019) looked at how stigma affects grieving, they discovered that those
who experience a suicidal loss are more inclined to disguise information from others
and feel abandoned by family and friends., and experience isolation during their
recovery. As a result, suicide loss survivors internalize the negative emotions associated
with perceived stigma in order to feel abnormal in their mourning. Findings on how
stigmatization affects grief due to suicide may also apply to populations dealing with
other loss circumstances.
Nostalgia
After beginning a new romantic relationship, people may continue to interact

with their ex-partners, remain friends with them, or even have an emotional bond to
them. Relationship scientists frequently view one's current relationship as being
threatened by their social ties and good emotional feelings for ex-spouses (Spielmann
et al., 2013). According to Rodriguez et al. (2016), those who kept in touch with their
ex-partners were less dedicated to their present romantic partnerships than those who
did not. Additionally, people were less content with and committed to their current
relationships the more frequently they interacted.
Nostalgic memories involve both bitter sweet emotions, while sweet

emotions—like those that are good or joyful—are far more prevalent than bitter ones—
like those that are negative or depressing in such memories. Ex-partners were formerly
extremely close friends and are therefore quite likely to cause feelings of nostalgia in
many people. The pleasant interactions people experienced with former partners, such
as passion, and emotional moments spent together, are likely to persist in one's mind
even though the relationship with ex-partners ended in disintegration (Cox et al., 2015).
Even unpleasant encounters that people experienced towards their relationships (such
as arguments and betrayals) are likely to be forgotten over time (Stern, 1992). As a
result, people could romanticize and long for their former companions. We don't know
what consequences such ex-partner longing will have.
While nostalgia is linked to a past-oriented feeling, the focus of nostalgia is

frequently on distant, enjoyable, and personally significant experiences. People recall,
think back on, and miss a period in their history when they are nostalgic for an ex-
partner (Hepper et al., 2012). Nostalgia for an ex-partner does not imply that person is
still harboring feelings for them or considering them to be a desirable alternative.
Contrastly, nostalgia is the capacity of humans to draw comfort from their memories of
loved ones in the past in order to promote social connection in the present or, to put it
another way, nostalgia serves as a psychological tool (Sedikides et al., 2015).
The ego is a major focus of nostalgic recollections, and themes of personal

development are frequently included (Abeyta et al., 2015). People employed phrases
that denoted self-growth while describing the traits and qualities of nostalgia, according
to a content analysis of the descriptions. Reminiscent memories frequently follow a
therapeutic narrative structure, directing one's thoughts toward personal growth—even
when they include components of pain and loss (Wildschut et al., 2006). Not only do
nostalgic memories contain growth-related elements, but nostalgia may also promote
personal development. Baldwin and Landau (2014) demonstrated that self-perceptions
related to post breakup recovery were influenced by nostalgia.
According to Wildschut et al. (2006), Nostalgia fosters good affect, boosts self-
esteem, and strengthens social connections, to name just a few of its effects. When
reassuring people that they are socially competent and that there are some people in
their life who value them, nostalgic recollections help people feel like they belong and
are connected (Wildschut et al., 2010). Indeed, a number of research have demonstrated
that nostalgic recollections enhanced people's sense of social support as did the belief
in one's ability to support others emotionally. According to Abeyta et al. (2015),
nostalgic recollections also encourage people to embrace and pursue societal
objectives.
Social Support
Socially acceptable methods of grieving have a significant influence on how

people perceive how to mourn. Social convention controls how long people should
grieve, how and when their grief should appear, and whose losses are proper to lament
(Worden, 2018). The bereaved may experience rejection and additional difficulties,
such as loneliness or melancholy, when their expression of grief deviates from socially
acceptable norms of grieving (Wolfelt, 2006).
Verbal and nonverbal social and interpersonal messages affect how people
express their grief in public, which can invalidate, demotivate, and minimise the
feelings of mourners. Atypical mourning processes can also result in a disenfranchising
feeling of grief, even while recognised grief indicators like unceasing crying increase
the likelihood of rejection from others (Doka, 2008). According to Worden (2018),
bereavement is a "social phenomenon" and that social assistance significantly reduces
the depth of grieving. According to Stroebe and colleagues (2005), the stress associated
with grieving and the signs of depression are lessened by social support. However, a
lack of social support has been associated with negative mourning effects like isolation,
stress, and feelings of guilt or shame (Bottomley et al., 2018).
According to Sharp et al. (2018), social support can help grieving people make
up for absent or limited family support. The quality and pleasure of a person's assistance
are more crucial for positive results in comparison to the quantity or availability of such
help, even though this is outside the topic of this work.
Rationale
This study's objective is to investigate the psychological predictors and

outcomes of grief after breakup among university students. Further exploring the role
of Sense of Coherence and Social Support among university students following
breakup. The current study is investigating the predictors of disenfranchised grief after
breakup among university students such as psychological predictors (Perceived
relationship closeness, Stigmatization and Nostalgia) psychological outcomes (Post
traumatic growth, Relationship thoughts Distress and Depression). Further it aimed to
explore role of sense of coherence and social support.
In academic counseling center settings, problems with romantic relationships

rank among the most frequently presented concerns. Therefore, increasing our
knowledge of romantic relationships and breakups among college students need
scholarly attention. Over many years, perceived closeness of relationship has been a
significant factor in predicting the severity of mourning in situations including death,
the dissolution of a friendship or non-marital breakup (Dibble et al., 2012).
Disenfranchised grief has been studied in western countries, as having a nonmarital
relationship is common among young adults and talking about relationships and
breakups is not considered awful. As Pakistani emerging university students are
engaging in nonmarital relationships as it becomes trend in many universities and many
experiencing relationship terminations which is not acknowledged by others and cause
psychological disturbances in them. This study will explore the antecedents and
outcomes of disenfranchised grief. Moreover, this study will explore how Pakistani,
Punjabi culture conceptualize grief norms that could better describe how a person
respond to the relationship breakup. The present study will be helpful in providing
knowledge about the factors and outcomes of disenfranchised grief. And understanding
how breakups affect student's emotional, physical, and cognitive performance during
this stage of emerging young adulthood as it has a significant impact on students' future.
It's common knowledge that thinking about one's former romantic partners is bad for
people's current romantic relationships. However, it has been argued that reflecting on
the past in a nostalgic manner can have positive effects. The relationship literature
frequently reports that being preoccupied or tied to former romantic relationships can
have detrimental effects on one's behavior or cognition (Griffith et al., 2017).
People can have either a fixed or a development mentality, according to Dweck

(2008). People who have a fixed mindset frequently think they can't change and that
their future will be very similar to the past. Accordingly, those who have a fixed mindset
are more prone to cling on to the idea that their ex-partner is their genuine love, harbor
unresolved desire for them, and possibly still feel an emotional bond to them. In
contrast, those who have a development mentality frequently think they can develop
and evolve. Numerous research have shown the advantages of a growing mindset in
contrast to a fixed mindset, along with its drawbacks (Schroder et al., 2017).
This research could be beneficial for describing the impact of Demographical

differences on university students following breakup. This study explains
disenfranchised grief predictors and outcomes. As sense of coherence and social
support theoretically influences disenfranchised grief, the study hypothesized that sense
of coherence and social support has an impact on university students following breakup
via both positive health outcomes (i.e., personal growth) and negative health outcome
(i.e., Distress, relationship thoughts and Depression).
Conceptual Framework
Perceived Post breakup

closeness of recovery and
relationship personal growth
Disenfranchised
Stigmatization grief Relationship
thoughts
Nostalgia
Distress
Depression
Sense of coherence Social support
Figure.1 representing the predictors and outcomes of Disenfranchised grief.

PSC= Predictor. (Perceived closeness of relationship, Stigmatization and Nostalgia),
negative outcomes, (depression, Distress, Relationship thoughts), and positive
outcomes (Post breakup recovery and personal growth). And psychological predictors
further lead towards positive and negative psychological outcomes. Role of sense of
coherence and social support.
Objectives
Objectives of the study are:
1. To investigate predictors and outcomes of disenfranchised grief after breakup

among university students.
2. To investigate the moderating role of sense of coherence and social support between
predictors and outcomes of disenfranchised grief after breakup among university
students.
3. To investigate the mediating role of disenfranchised grief between stigmatization
and distress, depression.
4. To investigate the impact of demographics on the study variables among university
students following breakup.
Hypothesis
1. There would be significant relationship among psychological predictors,
disenfranchised grief and psychological outcomes.
2. Perceived relationship closeness, stigmatization and nostalgia would be significant
predictor of disenfranchised grief after breakup among university students.
3. Disenfranchised grief would be significant predictor of post traumatic growth,
relationship thoughts, distress and depression after breakup among university
students.
4. Sense of Coherence would moderate the relationship of disenfranchised grief and
psychological predictors.
5. Social Support would moderate the relationship of disenfranchised grief and
psychological outcomes. .
6. Disenfranchised grief would mediate the relationship between perceived
relationship closeness and psychological outcomes (post traumatic growth,
relationship thoughts, distress and depression).
7. Disenfranchised grief would mediate the relationship between stigmatization and
psychological outcomes (post traumatic growth, relationship thoughts, distress and
depression).
8. Disenfranchised grief would mediate the relationship between nostalgia and
psychological outcomes (post traumatic growth, relationship thoughts, distress and
depression).
9. There would be significant demographical differences on study variables after
breakup among university students.
Operational Definitions
Disenfranchised Grief
Disenfranchised sorrow is pain experienced by people when they endure a loss

that can't be considered openly acknowledged, mourned, or accepted socially (Doka
and Aber, 1989a).
Stigmatization
Stigma is event which "discredits" a person and eventually reduces a "whole

and normal person to a tainted, rejected one" Goffman (1963).
Perceived Relationship Closeness
According to Kelley et al. (1983), the extent to which two people are
emotionally, cognitively, and behaviorally dependent on one another, as well as how
often and how strongly this influence occurs, is officially defined here as the level of
relationship closeness.
Sense of Coherence
Sense of coherence is defined as how well someone manages stress

(Antonovsky’s, 1979).
Post-Breakup Recovery and Personal Growth
A person's conviction that he can improve psychologically despite his prior state
of functioning as an effect of previous relationships (Tashiro & Frazier, 2003).
Relationship Thoughts
After a breakup, a person might think of their prior relationship (Field

et al., 2009). Understanding the emotional content of our thoughts, whether they are
positive or negative, can help us better understand how these thoughts affect our
attitudes and behaviors, as well as how likely we are to approach or avoid certain people
or situations.
Breakup Distress
When a romantic relationship ends on its own, it frequently causes distress

including pain, grief, worry, and rage as well as possible physical responses like lack
of appetite and difficulty sleeping (Morris & Reiber, 2011).
Depression
Depression is a low mental condition characterized by misery, trouble paying

attention and thinking, problems sleeping, a significant difference in appetite increase
or decrease, and feelings of grief, anguish, and in some cases, suicide thoughts. Short-
term or long-term depression are both possible (de Zwart et al. 2019).
Nostalgia
Nostalgia is described as a sentimental yearning or wistful affection of past

times (Wildschut et al., 2006).
Social Support
Positive social contacts involve the exchange of resources between two or more
people with the perception that the goal is to improve the recipient's wellbeing. Social
supports that are viewed as being available to someone to support their relationship can
be included in social support (Shaumaker and Brownell, 1984).
CHAPTER II
Method
Research Plan
The research plan of the present study was comprised of three parts. The first
part of study consisted of translation of the scale. There were eight scales which were
translated into Urdu language from English language. The scales were translated by the
method of forward-backward translation. Also, the inter item correlation and inter
scales correlation of these scales were explored. Then the second part of the study
comprised of pilot study in which hypothetical model was tested. Lastly, the third part
was main study in which relationship of all the variables were examined.
Part I
Translation and Adaptation. First part of the study was aimed to translate the scales
whose Urdu version was not available. The first part is divided further into two phases
in which first phase consist of the translation and adaptation of the scales to be
translated. The translation was accomplished by back translation method in which the
scales were translated to native language (Urdu) from original language (English) and
then there was committee approach by the experts from department of Psychology.
Then again, the scales were translated from native language to their original language
and then again there was a committee approach from the experts of Department of
Psychology. Second phase of the part comprised of the statistical analysis in which after
translations of the scale psychometric properties were measured. Further, the item inter
correlation of all scales were also measured.
Part II
Pilot Study. In the second part of study, the relationship of all study variables was
explored. The sample of pilot study comprised of N=120. All scales were administered
on university students who had a non-marital relationship breakup to test the
hypothetical model of the present study.
Part III
Main Study. Main study is the final part of study in which all the variables were
administered on sample. The sample was comprised of university students following
breakup N=300 in which gender was given equal representation. Further, the
psychometric properties of all scales were ensured and relationship of all variables were
administered to see more clear results. This part also explored the moderating effect of
sense of coherence and social support on other variables.
Translation and Adaptation of Scales
Phase I
The first phase of the study was translation and adaptation of the scales which
were not in native language. Eight scales from the English version of the study were
translated into Urdu. The scales needed to be translated into study participants native
language so they can better understand the statements and provide better responses.
The following scales were translated in Urdu.
1. Inventory of Complicated Grief

2. Grief Experience Questionnaire: Stigma Subscale
3. Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale
4. Southampton Nostalgia Scale
5. Sense of Coherence Scale
6. Post Traumatic Growth Inventory (short-form)
7. Positive and Negative Ex Relationship Thoughts Scale
8. Breakup Distress Scale
Procedure
Translation of Inventory of Complicated Grief, Grief Experience Questionnaire: Stigma

Subscale, Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale, Southampton Nostalgia Scale,
Sense of Coherence Scale, Post Traumatic Growth Inventory (short-form), Positive and
Negative Ex Relationship Thoughts Scale and Breakup Distress Scale was done by
three bilingual experts. A standardized forward-backward translation method was
followed. To preserve the meaning of original and translated version, translation was
done.
Forward Translation. Translation of Inventory of Complicated Grief, Grief Experience

Questionnaire: Stigma Subscale, Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale,
Southampton Nostalgia Scale, Sense of Coherence Scale, Post Traumatic Growth
Inventory (short-form), Positive and Negative Ex Relationship Thoughts Scale and
Breakup Distress Scale. Translation committee was established to translate the scales
into intended language (Urdu). People who were clear in their comprehension of both
the English and Urdu language were approached for this reason. Three MPhil scholars
from Psychology Department of University of Sargodha were part of the panel of
experts. All of them were proficient in both languages and were experts in technical
correspondence of language including tenses, grammar, length of question and their
relationship to socio-cultural context.
Committee Approach. Following the translation of each scale’s items, the items were
verified by committee approach technique. A committee member analyzed the three
distinct translated versions of all scales and approved culturally suitable Urdu
translation. Three people made up the committee: one assistant professor and two
lecturers from Psychology Department of University of Sargodha. They all were experts
in their field. They carefully evaluate each item and select the one that best expressed
the conceptual idea. The main goal of this procedure was cultural equivalence. At the
end, the final Urdu translated version of eight scales was achieved.
Back translation. Following the selection of the Urdu translated items of the scales.
these scales were once more translated into English language to assess the theoretical
consistency of reconciled forward Urdu translation and original English version. The
panel consisted on three bilingual experts who had never used the original scales. Three
of them were MPhil scholars from Department of English, University of Sargodha. The
process is same as it was for the initial translation. These experts performed the English
translation of the Urdu scales to ensure that it was reliable, accurate and free of
linguistic bias. At this point, the experts focused on achieving the conceptual and
cultural consistency.
Committee Approach. One of associate professor and two lecturers participated in the
committee approach to validate the scales. Following the panel’s selection, the
members compared the Urdu translation to the original scale to see whether it accurately
captured its meaning. The discussed the discrepancies. All of the translated items were
organized in accordance with original scale. The method ultimately produced versions
of all scales that were conceptually and technically valid.
Phase II
In this phase of the study, the psychometric properties of scales were measured. Further,
items total correlation of the scales was measured to find out the weakness or errors of
translated scales.
Results
Table 1
Item-Total Correlation of Inventory of Complicated Grief (N=120)
Item no. R Item no. R

1 .52** 10 .44**
2 .61** 11 .46**
3 .54** 12 .64**
4 .68** 13 .40**
5 .68** 14 .48**
6 .65** 15 .64**
7 .70** 16 .51**
8 .72** 17 .53**
9 .57** 18 .65**
Note. **p<.01
Table 1 demonstrates a significant positive association between each

component. These findings demonstrate the scale's strong internal consistency.
Table 2
Item-Total Correlation of Grief Experience Questionnaire-Stigma Subscale (N=120)
Item no. R
1 .70**
2 .69**
3 .52**
4 .52**
5 .49**
6 .49**
7 .52**
8 .54**
9 .44**
10 .52**
Note. **p<.01

component. These findings demonstrate the scale's strong internal consistency..
Table 3
Item-Total Correlation of Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (N=120)
Item no. R
1 .56**
2 .73**
3 .65**
4 .66**
5 .66**
6 .69**
7 .61**
8 .66**
9 .59**
10 .75**
11 .71**
Note. **p<.01

Table 4
Item-Total Correlation of Sense of Coherence Scale (N=120)
Item no. R
1 .33**
2 .49**
3 .48**
4 .41**
5 .45**
6 .25**
7 .03**
8 .45**
9 .17**
Note. **p<.01

component. These findings demonstrate the scale's moderate internal consistency.
Table 5
Item-Total Correlation of Post Traumatic Growth Inventory (N=120)
Item no. R
1 .71**
2 .77**
3 .67**
4 .66**
5 .60**
6 .72**
7 .75**
8 .73**
9 .68**
10 .60**
Note. **p<.01

Table 6
Item-Total Correlation of Positive and Negative Ex Relationship Thought Scale

(N=120)
Item no. R
1 .63**
2 .47**
3 .70**
4 .37**
5 .56**
6 .61**
7 .60**
8 .56**
9 .55**
10 .46**
11 .60**
12 .57**
Note. **p<.01

Table 7
Item-Total Correlation of Breakup Distress Scale (N=120)
Item no. R Item no. R

1 .60** 9 .45**
2 .67** 10 .50**
3 .74** 11 .46**
4 .63** 12 .51**
5 .50** 13 .43**
6 .55** 14 .59**
7 .60** 15 .51**
8 .48** 16 .59**
Note. **p<.01

Table 8
Item-Total Correlation of Southampton Nostalgia Scale (N=120)
Item no. R
1 .73**
2 .81**
3 .74**
4 .64**
5 .61**
6 .58**
7 .30**
Note. **p<.01

DISCUSSION
The first part of study was intended to translating of Inventory of Complicated

Grief, Grief Experience Questionnaire: Stigma Subscale, Unidimensional Relationship
Closeness Scale, Southampton Nostalgia Scale, Sense of Coherence Scale, Post
Traumatic Growth Inventory (short-form), Positive and Negative Ex Relationship
Thoughts Scale and Breakup Distress Scale into Urdu. After the translation all scales,
they were applied on university students following breakup (N=120). With the
psychometric properties, inter items correlation were performed. Table 1 to table 8
shows inter-items correlation of Inventory of Complicated Grief, Grief Experience
Questionnaire: Stigma Subscale, Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale,
Southampton Nostalgia Scale, Sense of Coherence Scale, Post Traumatic Growth
Inventory (short-form), Positive and Negative Ex Relationship Thoughts Scale and
Breakup Distress Scale. These results showed that all the items of scales are
significantly positive correlate with each other.
PILOT STUDY
This phase of the study was done to ensure the reliability of the Urdu translated
instruments as well as the psychometric properties of all scales.
Objective
• The pretesting of all the study psychological measures.

• To explore the association between all the study variables.
• To examine the psychometric properties of the study instruments.
Hypothesis
1. There will be significant relationship in all study variables.

2. Perceived closeness of relationship, stigmatization, nostalgia, depression, breakup
distress and relationship thoughts will be significantly positive correlate with
disenfranchised grief.
3. Sense of coherence, social support and post breakup recovery will be significantly
negative correlate with disenfranchised grief.
Sample
The sample of this phase of the present study comprised of (N = 120) university
students following relationship breakup, it was further divided into male (n = 60) and
female (n=60) both genders were given equal representation. The age range for the
study is from 18-35 with education of undergraduate and more than undergraduate were
included in the sample frame of the study. Individuals below this age or above this age
were not part of present study.
Instruments
1. Inventory of Complicated Grief (ICG). Inventory of Complicated Grief was

developed by Prigerson et al., in 1995. The scale was used to measure
disenfranchised grief. The Inventory of Complex Grief is a tool used to evaluate
complicated grieving symptoms, such as depression, disbelief, and anxiety
connected to loss. The scale had 18 items, each of which was scored on a 5-point
scale from 0 (Never) to 4. (Always). Higher scores indicate more intense grief, with
a total Inventory of Complex Grief score ranging from 0 to 72. The ICG has a test-
retest reliability of 0.80 and a good internal consistency (α = 0.94). Each item-total
correlation was more than 0.48. (Prigerson et al., 1995).
2. Grief Experience Questionnaire GEQ (Stigma Subscale). The Grief Experience
Questionnaire was developed by Barrett and Scott in 1989. The scale was used to
measure stigmatization. The Grief Experience Questionnaire is a self-report
measure originally made up of 55 Likert-scale items which subdivided into eleven
thematic subscales with an alpha of 0.79. The Grief Experience Questionnaire's
Stigmatization Subscale, which consists of 10 items, measures respondents'
perceptions of perceived stigma in relation to the severity of their grief. The
measure was scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always), with higher
scores indicating greater feelings of stigmatization. The total score ranged from 10
to 50. All of the item total correlations were higher than 0.44.
3. The Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (URCS). The Unidimensional
Relationship Closeness Scale was developed by Dibble et al., in 2012. The scale
was used to measure perceived relationship closeness. The 12-item self-report
Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Measure measures the degree of closeness
between two people. When developing the Unidimensional Relationship Closeness
Scale Dibble et al., in 2010 discovered that college students valued closeness in a
variety of relationship types, including romantic relationships, friendships, family
relationships, and stranger relationships. The scale has an alpha of 0.96, which
indicates that it is unidimensional and highly reliable across relationship types. The
measure has 12 items that were scored on a Likert scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to
7 (Strongly Agree) (Strongly Agree). Higher scores indicate that the participant had
seen the relationship as moving closer, with a total score that ranges from 12 to 84.
4. Sense of Coherence Scale (SOCS). The sense of coherence scale developed by
Schumacher et al., in 2000. The 9-item sense of coherence scale, which measures
comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness was also included in the
questionnaire. Each item in the 9-item sense of coherence scale has seven graded
(Likert-type) response scale, which is summed up and the total scores can range
from 9 (low sense of coherence) to the maximum of 63 (highest possible sense of
coherence). Item 2, Item 3, Item 5, and Item 8 are scored reversely. The alpha
reliability of scale ranges from 0.74 to 0.91.
5. Post Traumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI). The Post Traumatic Growth
Inventory was developed by Tedseschi and Calhoun in 1996 modified by Tashori
and Frazier in 2003 to measure how much life change had been experienced in
different areas as a result of a romantic relationship breakup. The scale was used to
measure post-breakup recovery and personal growth. The scale consisted of 10
items. Items were rated on a scale of 1 (I did not experience this) to 6 (I experienced
this to a very great degree). A total score was calculated which ranges from 10 to
60 with higher scores indicating greater experiences of or greater variety of benefits
resulting from the process of post-breakup recovery and growth. The alpha
reliability of scale is 0.90.
6. Positive and Negative Ex Relationship Thoughts Scale (PANERT). The Positive
and Negative Ex Relationship Thoughts Scale was developed by Brenner and Vogel
in 2015. The scale was used to measure the relationship thoughts. The scale
consisted of 12-items. Items were rated on 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to
5 (always). Internal consistencies ranged from .88 –.94 for positive content valence
and from .87–.94 for negative content valence.
7. Breakup distress scale (BDS). The Breakup Distress Scale was developed by Field
et al., in 2009. The breakup distress scale assessed the extent that they felt a certain
way when their relationship ended. The scale consisted of 16 items that are rated
using a 4-point scale ranging from (1 = not at all, 4 = very much so). A total score
was calculated which ranges from 16 to 64 with higher scores indicating greater
distress at the time of the breakup. The alpha reliability of scale is 0.91.
8. Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21). DASS-21 is a measure of
mental health focusing on the three traits of depression, anxiety and stress (DASS;
S. H. Lovibond & P. F. Lovibond, 1995). Item related to depression are 21, 10, 3,
16, 17, 13 and 5. Items related to anxiety are 19, 4, 7, 15, 20, 9 and 2. Items related
to stress are 14, 18, 12, 11, 8, 1 and 6. Cronbach's alphas DASS-21 subscales were
.94 for Depression and .87 for Anxiety (Martin et.al, 1998). Each subscale consisted
of 7-items that were rated on 4-point scale ranging from 0(never) to 3(almost). The
total score of depression subscale ranges from 0 to 21 with higher scores indicating
greater level of depression.
9. Southampton Nostalgia Scale. The Southampton nostalgia scale was developed
by Routledge et al., in 2008. The scale is used to measure nostalgia. The scale
consisted of 7-items that were rated on seven-point scale ranging from 1(very
rarely) to 7(very frequently). A total score was calculated which ranges from 7 to
49 with higher scores indicating greater nostalgic experiences. The alpha reliability
of scale is 0.93.
10. Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS). The scale was
developed by Zimet et al., in 1988. The scale was used to measure social
support. The scale is comprised of a total of 12 items. Items were rated on 7-point
scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree). To calculate
mean scores Sum across all 12 items, then divide by 12. The alpha reliability of
scale is 0.91.
Procedure
First, the participants were given the questionnaire in Urdu with an informed
consent form, in which they were asked to voluntarily participate in the study. They
were given instructions and asked to complete the questionnaire. Participants were
given the assurance that their information would be considered confidential and that
they could leave the study at any moment. Following the data collection, an analysis
was carried out to evaluate the psychometric properties and correlation of all study
scales.
RESULTS
Table 9
Psychometric Properties of the Study Variables (N=120)
Variables k M SD α Range Skewnessa Kurtosisb

Actual Potential
DG 18 33.46 15.39 .88 0-72 4-65 .12 -.67
Stigma 10 25.02 7.72 .74 10-50 10-40 .21 -.97
PRC 11 34.77 15.28 .87 12-84 11-77 .49 -.22
SOC 9 36.58 6.44 .16 9-63 21-54 .60 .23
PBR 10 27.17 11.43 .87 10-60 3-49 .05 -.66
RT 12 29.86 8.20 .80 12-50 13-55 .53 .59
BD 16 42.19 9.51 .85 16-64 19-61 -.47 -.11
Depression 7 8.69 4.16 .63 0-21 1-21 .41 -.08
Nostalgia 7 24.28 9.02 .76 7-49 7-47 .59 -.12
SS 12 44.18 14.28 .84 12-84 16-83 .32 -.14
Standard error of Skewnessa =.19; Standard error of Kurtosisb=.39. Note. DG= Disenfranchised Grief;
PRC= Perceived Relationship Closeness; SOC= Sense of Coherence; PBS= Post Breakup Recovery;
RT= Relationship Thoughts; BD= Breakup Distress; SS= Social Support.
The means, standard deviations, and reliability of each study variable are shown
in Table 9. All variables in the results have strong alpha reliability. The results of the
normality analysis show that the data was normally distributed, with skewness values
between -1 and +1. Additionally, the result shows suitable variability with an actual and
potential range that is approximately equal across all scale.
Table 10
Inter Scale Correlation of the Study Variables (N=120)
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.DG - .67** .37 -.70 .18* .42** .03 .29** .20* -.28**
2.Stigma - .02 .17 .07 .34** .03 .28** .18* .09
3.PRC - -.14 .14 .07 -.16 .22* -.07 .04
4.SOC - -.07 .23* .22* .10 -.03 -.16
5.PBR - .36** -.35** .24** .44** .47**
6.RT - .02 .41** .33** .42**
7.BD - -.23* -.15 -.20*
8.Depression - .35** .20*
9.Nostalgia - .47**
10.SS -
**p< .01, *p<.05 Note. DG= Disenfranchised Grief; PRC= Perceived Relationship Closeness; SOC=
Sense of Coherence; PBS= Post Breakup Recovery; RT= Relationship Thoughts; BD= Breakup
Distress; SS= Social Support.
Table 10 shows correlation between all study variables.

DISCUSSION
The focus of the study's second part was to investigate the relationships between
all of the variables. The aim was to evaluate the psychometric properties and correlation
of each variable. The sample (N=120) was comprised of university students who had
breakup. The psychometric properties of each measure are shown in Table 9. The
skewness value indicated that the data had a normally distributed distribution. The
scales' strong alpha reliability indicates high internal consistency. Table 10 displays the
correlation among all variables. Some of the outcomes of the pilot study are not
statistically significant because of the limited sample size. By expanding the study's
sample size, the findings of the current study can be more clearly understood.
MAIN STUDY
Main study was third part of the present study in which the relationship of all
study variables was explored. Moreover, it was aimed to explore the mediating effect
of sense of coherence, social support and disenfranchised grief.
Sample
The sample of the study comprises of N=300 including both males and females.
For this study the purposive sampling technique was used because the sample
comprises of university students following breakup whose age ranges from 18-35.
Further the participants must be a student of undergraduate program as minimum level
of education. Individuals other than these characteristics were not part of study.
Research Design
In the present study, correlational survey research design was used to collect
data from desired sample.
Instruments
Above all mentioned instruments Inventory of Complicated Grief (ICG), Grief

Experience Questionnaire GEQ (Stigma Subscale), The Unidimensional Relationship
Closeness Scale (URCS), Sense of Coherence Scale (SOCS), Post-Traumatic Growth
Inventory (PTGI), Positive and Negative Ex Relationship Thoughts Scale (PANERT),
Breakup distress scale (BDS), Southampton Nostalgia Scale (SNS), Depression,
Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social
Support (MSPSS) were used in the present study.
Demographics
To ensure more thorough information about participants, a demographic sheet

was included to the informed consent of questionnaire. In demographic sheet the
demographics included were age, gender, education, residence, family system, time
since breakup and relationship duration.
Table 11
Demographic Characteristics of Sample (N=300)
Demographics F % N
Gender 300
Male 169 56.6
Female 131 43.4
Age 300
18-23 177 59.3
24-29 91 30.1
30-35 32 10.6
Family System 300
Nuclear 177 59.6
Joint 123 40.7
Education 300
Undergraduate 178 59.6
Graduate 101 33.4
Post graduate 21 7
Residence 300
Urban 179 59.3
Rural 123 40.7
Time since Breakup 300
More than week 94 31.1
More than month 125 41.7
More than year 81 26.8
Relationship Duration 300
More than week 52 17.2
More than month 106 35.1
More than year 129 43.4
More than 3 years 13 4.3
Table 11 shows the demographic characteristics of present study. Results
indicate the frequency of male (f= 169, 56.6%) and female (f= 131, 43.4%). Further,
the sample was categorized on the basis of young adults age ranging from 18 to 35 year.
18-23 (f=177, 59.3%), 24-29 (f=91, 30.1%), 30-35 (f=32, 10.6%). Further
demographics show family system of nuclear (f=177, 59.6%) and joint (f=123, 40.7%).
Further education was seen as undergraduate (f=178, 59.6%), graduate (f=101, 33.4%)
and post graduate (f=21, 7%). Further residential areas of urban (f=179, 59.3%) and
rural (f=123, 40.7%). Moreover, the time since breakup was categorized as more than
one week (f=94, 31.1%), more than month (f=106, 35.1%) and more than year (f=81,
26.8%). Further, the relationship duration was categorized as more than week (f=52,
17.2%), more than month (f=106, 35.1%), more than year (f=129, 43.4%) and more
than 3 years (f=13, 4.3%).
Procedure
Once the study was approved by the Board of Studies, the scales of the present
study were translated into Urdu language. The date was collected by both online and
physical mean. By online mean the questionnaire which include inform consent,
demographic variables and all scales of present study was made on google form and
then link was generated which was sent to the participants through social media
platforms. Most of the data was collected physically by approaching participants of
different universities. First of all, the participants of the study were briefed about the
purpose of the study through inform consent. Participants were asked to complete the
questionnaire in as open and honest way as possible, despite their participation being
completely anonymous. Their participation will take approximately 15 to 20 minutes
and their answers will be maintained anonymously and used for the research purpose
only. They may discontinue their participation at any time without penalty. After
receiving completed questionnaires, the participants were thanked for their support and
cooperation. From online and offline method approximately, out of the 340 people that
began the study, only 300 completed it correctly and were added to the final sample.
Then the statistical analysis was executed.
CHAPTER III
Results
The present study was aimed to analyze the predictors and the outcomes of
disenfranchised grief among university students following breakup. The variety of
statistical techniques were applied on the data. The results of present study were
consisted of descriptive, correlation, regression, t-test and ANOVA. For more advance
analysis mediation and moderation were executed.
Table 12
Psychometric Properties of the Study Variables (N=300)
Variables k M SD α Range Skewnessa Kurtosisb

Actual Potential
DG 18 34.65 17.34 .92 0-72 1-72 .04 -.91
Stigma 10 25.41 9.19 .84 10-50 10-45 -.02 -.71
PRC 11 35.41 15.56 .88 12-84 11-77 .47 -.43
SOC 9 34.58 7.27 .47 9-63 9-57 -.04 1.10
PBR 10 27.65 11.36 .87 10-60 1-50 -.03 -.72
RT 12 30.67 9.32 .87 12-50 11-55 .36 .21
BD 16 41.97 9.94 .87 16-64 16-61 -.39 -.33
Depression 7 8.26 4.17 .66 0-21 0-21 .38 -.12
Nostalgia 7 24.98 9.38 .78 7-49 7-47 .35 -.82
SS 12 44.16 15.16 .87 12-84 12-83 .49 -.09
Standard error of Skewnessa =.19; Standard error of Kurtosisb=.39. Note. DG= Disenfranchised Grief;
PRC= Perceived Relationship Closeness; SOC= Sense of Coherence; PBS= Post Breakup Recovery;
RT= Relationship Thoughts; BD= Breakup Distress; SS= Social Support.
The means, standard deviations, and reliability of each study variable are shown
in Table 12. All variables in the results have strong alpha reliability. The results of the
normality analysis show that the data was normally distributed, with skewness values
between -1 and +1. Additionally, the result shows suitable variability with an actual and
potential range that is approximately equal across all scale.
Table 13
Inter Scale Correlation of the Study Variables (N=300)

Variables 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.DG - .75** .43* -.02* .26** .50** .14* .19** .24** -.26**
2.Stigma - .02 -.11* .20** .45** .17** .23** .19** .11*
3.PRC - .11 .17** .08 -.09* .13* -.01 -.04
4.SOC - -.01 -.25** -.13* -.17** -.12* .03
5.PBR - .43** -.24** .16** .42** .42**
6.RT - .09 .35** .48** .40**
7.BD - -.08 -.02 -.22*
8.Depression - .26** .14*
9.Nostalgia - .44**
10.SS -
Table 13 shows correlation between all study variables. The result showed that
disenfranchised grief was significantly positively correlated with stigmatization,
perceived relationship closeness, post breakup recovery, relationship thoughts, breakup
distress, depression, nostalgia and social support while show significantly negative
correlation with sense of coherence. Moreover, the results showed that stigmatization
was significantly negatively correlated with sense of coherence while significantly
positively correlated with post breakup recovery, relationship thoughts, breakup
distress, depression, social support and nostalgia while non-significant positive
correlation with perceived relationship closeness. Further the results showed that
perceive relationship closeness was significantly positively correlated with post
breakup recovery and depression while showed non-significant correlation with sense
of coherence, relationship thoughts, nostalgia and social support. Further the results
showed that sense of coherence was significantly negatively correlated with
relationship thoughts, breakup distress, depression and nostalgia while showed non-
significant correlation with other variables. Moreover, the results showed that post
breakup recovery was significantly positively correlated with relationship thoughts,
depression, nostalgia and social support while significantly negatively correlated with
breakup distress. Also, the results showed that relationship thought was significantly
positively correlated with depression, nostalgia and social support while showed non-
significant positive correlation with breakup distress. Further the breakup distress
showed significant negative correlation with social support and non-significant
correlation with depression and nostalgia. The depression was significantly positively
correlated with nostalgia and social support. Further the nostalgia was significantly
positively correlated with social support.
Table 14
Regression Coefficient of Stigmatization, Perceived Relationship Closeness and

Nostalgia on Disenfranchised Grief (N=300)
Variables B SE t P 95% CI
Constant -.443 2.81 -1.57 .11 [-9.9, 1.1]
Stigmatization 1.37 .073 18.88 .00 [1.23, 1.52]
Perceived relationship closeness -.01 .042 -.24 .40 [-.09, .07]
Nostalgia .17 .072 2.48 .01 [.03, .31]
Note. CI= Confidence Interval
Table 14 shows the impact of stigmatization, perceived relationship closeness

and nostalgia on disenfranchised grief. The R2 value of .57 revealed that the predictors
explained 57% variance in the outcome variable with F (3, 298) = 132.35, p< .001. the
findings revealed that stigmatization predicted disenfranchised grief (β = .73, p< .001)
whereas perceived relationship closeness has significant effect on disenfranchised grief
(β = -.009, p<.05) and nostalgia predicted disenfranchised grief (β = .09, p< .05).
Table 15
Regression Coefficient of Disenfranchised Grief on Post Breakup Recovery (N=300)

Variable B Β SE
Constant 21.65*** 1.41
Disenfranchised Grief .17*** .26 .03
R2 .07
p< .001.
The effect of disenfranchised grieving on post-breakup recovery in university

students is shown in Table 15. F (2, 299) = 22.43, p<.001 and an R2 value of.07 showed
that the variable that predicted the outcome explained 7% variation in the result
variables. Disenfranchised grieving was found to positively predict post-breakup
recovery (t =.26, p<.001).
Table 16
Regression Coefficient of Disenfranchised Grief on Relationship Thoughts (N=300)

Variable B β SE
Constant 21.18*** 1.03
R2 .25
p< .001.
The effect of grieving without representation on relationship thoughts in

university students is depicted in Table 16. The variable serving as a predictor explained
27% of the variation in the outcome variables with an R2 value of.27 and F (2, 299) =
104.9, p.001. The results showed that disenfranchised grieving significantly predicted
post-breakup recovery (p =.50).
Table 17
Regression Coefficient of Disenfranchised Grief on Breakup Distress (N=300)

Variable B Β SE
Constant 39.09*** 1.26
Disenfranchised Grief .08* .14 .03
R2 .02
***p< .001. *p<.05
The effect of disenfranchised grief on breakup distress among university

students is depicted in Table 17. F (2, 299) = 6.41, p.001 and an R2 value of.07 showed
that the variable serving as a predictor explained 7% variance in the result variables.
Disenfranchised grieving was found to significantly predict breakup distress (β =.14,
p.05).
Table 18
Regression Coefficient of Disenfranchised Grief on Depression (N=300)

Variable B β SE
Constant 6.62*** .52
R2 .03
p< .001.
The effect of disenfranchised sorrow on depression in college students is

depicted in Table 18. F (2, 299) = 11.94, p<.001 and an R2 value of.03 showed that the
variable serving as a predictor explained 3% variation in the outcome variables. The
results showed that disenfranchised grieving significantly increases the risk of
depression (β = .19, p< .001).
Table 19
Moderating role of sense of coherence between perceived relationship closeness and

disenfranchised grief (N=300)
95% CL
Variables Β SE T LL UL
PRC .02 .06 .31 -.10 .14
SOC -.010 .14 -.07 -.28 .26
PRC*SOC -.012 .00 -1.8 -.03 .00
R2 .001
∆R2 .01
*p< .05 Note. PRC= Perceived Relationship Closeness, SOC= sense of coherence
Table 19 shows moderating role of sense of coherence between perceive

relationship closeness and disenfranchised grief. Findings confirms sense of coherence
moderated between perceive relationship closeness and disenfranchised grief
relationship among university students. The value of R2 0.001 indicate that no variation
in outcome variable is explained by the predictors with F (3, 296) = 132.80, p< 0.001.
The value of ∆R2 is 0.01 with ∆F (1, 296) = 4.01, p< 0.05 explains variance of 1%
additional effect in disenfranchised grief. The finding indicates that perceive
relationship closeness (B= .02, p< 0.001) sense of coherence (B= -.010, p< 0.01) and
perceive relationship closeness × sense of coherence (B= -.012, p< 0.05) has significant
negative effect on disenfranchised grief.
Figure 2. Interactive effect of perceive relationship closeness and sense of coherence
on disenfranchised grief.
Figure 2 is showing moderating effect of sense of coherence where slope of

regression line shows the negative relationship between perceived relationship
closeness and disenfranchised grief.
Table 20
Moderating role of sense of coherence between stigmatization and disenfranchised

grief (N=300)
95% CL
Stigma 2.05 .32 6.39*** 1.42 2.68
SOC .63 .25 2.47** .12 1.13
Stigma*SOC -.01 .008 -2.00* -.03 -.003
R2 .57
∆R2 .005
***p< .001 **p< .01 *p< .05 Note. SOC= sense of coherence
Table 20 shows moderating role of sense of coherence between stigmatization

and disenfranchised grief. Findings confirms sense of coherence moderated between
stigmatization and disenfranchised grief relationship among university students. The
value of R2 0.57 indicate that 57% variance in outcome variable is explained by the
predictors with F (3, 296) = 132.80, p< 0.001. The value of ∆R2 is 0.005 with ∆F (1,
296) = 4.01, p< 0.05 explains variance of 5% additional effect in disenfranchised grief.
The finding indicates that stigmatization (B= 2.05, p< 0.001) sense of coherence
(B=0.63, p< 0.01) and stigmatization × sense of coherence (B= -.01, p< 0.05) has
significant effect on disenfranchised grief.
Figure 3. Interactive effect of stigmatization and sense of coherence on
Figure 3 is showing moderating effect of sense of coherence where slope of
regression line shows the positive relationship between stigmatization and
Table 21
Moderating role of sense of coherence between nostalgia and disenfranchised grief

(N=300)
95% CL
Variables Β SE t LL UL
Nostalgia -.44 .49 -.89 -1.40 .52
SOC -.66 .37 -1.77 -1.40 .07
Nostalgia*SOC .02 .01 1.84 -.001 .05
R2 .06
∆R2 .01
*p< .05 Note. SOC= sense of coherence
Table 21 shows moderating role of sense of coherence between nostalgia and

disenfranchised grief. Findings confirms sense of coherence did not moderated between
nostalgia and disenfranchised grief relationship among university students. The value
of R2 0.06 indicate that 6% variance in outcome variable is explained by the predictors
with F (3, 296) = 7.35, p> 0.05. The value of ∆R2 is 0.01 with ∆F (1, 296) = 3.40, p>
0.05 explains variance of 1% additional effect in disenfranchised grief. The finding
indicates that nostalgia (B= -.44, p> 0.05) sense of coherence (B= -.66, p> 0.05) and
stigmatization × sense of coherence (B= .02, p> 0.05) has non-significant effect on
Table 22
Moderating role of social support between disenfranchised grief and post breakup
recovery (N=300)
95% CL
DG .10 .03 3.02** .03 .17
SS .28 .04 7.14*** .20 .36
DG*SS -.001 .002 -.87 -.006 .002
R2 .20
∆R2 .002
*p< .05 Note. SS= social support, DG= disenfranchised grief
Table 22 shows moderating role of social support between disenfranchised grief

and post breakup recovery. Findings confirms social support did not moderated between
disenfranchised grief and post breakup recovery relationship among university
students. The value of R2 0.20 indicate that 20% variance in outcome variable is
explained by the predictors with F (3, 296) = 25.72, p< 0.001. The value of ∆R2 is 0.02
with ∆F (1, 296) = 0.76, p> 0.05 explains variance of 1% additional effect in
disenfranchised grief. The finding indicates that disenfranchised grief (B= 0.10, p<0.01)
social support (B= .28, p< 0.001) has significant effect on post breakup recovery and
disenfranchised grief × social support (B= -0.001, p> 0.05) has non-significant effect
on post breakup recovery.
Table 23
Moderating role of social support between disenfranchised grief and relationship

thoughts (N=300)
95% CL
Variables Β SE t LL UL
DG .24 .07 3.25** .09 .39
SS .18 .06 2.77** .05 .31
DG*SS -.0002 .001 -.15 -.003 .002
R2 .33
∆R2 .0001
*p< .05 Note. SS= social support

and relationship thoughts. Findings confirms social support did not moderated between
disenfranchised grief and relationship thoughts relationship among university students.
The value of R2 0.33 indicate that 33% variance in outcome variable is explained by the
296) = 0.76, p> 0.05 explains no variance of additional effect in disenfranchised grief.
The finding indicates that disenfranchised grief (B= 0.24, p<0.01) social support (B=
0.18, p< 0.001) has significant effect on post breakup recovery and disenfranchised
grief × social support (B= -0.002, p> 0.05) has non-significant effect on post breakup
recovery.
Table 24
Moderating role of social support between disenfranchised grief and breakup distress
(N=300)
95% CL
DG .17 .09 1.82 -.01 .35
SS -.14 .08 -1.7 -.30 .01
DG*SS -.001 .002 -.51 -.005 .002
R2 .09
∆R2 .0008
*p< .05 Note. SS= social support

and breakup distress. Findings confirms social support did not moderated between
disenfranchised grief and breakup distress relationship among university students. The
value of R2 0.09 indicate that 9% variance in outcome variable is explained by the
296) = 0.26, p> 0.05 explains no variance of additional effect in disenfranchised grief.
The finding indicates that disenfranchised grief (B= 0.17, p> 0.05) social support (B= -
0.14, p>0.05) and disenfranchised grief × social support (B= -0.01, p> 0.05) has non-
significant effect on post breakup recovery.
Table 25
Moderating role of social support between disenfranchised grief and depression

(N=300)
95% CL
DG .03 .04 .91 -.04 .11
SS .02 .03 .69 -.04 .09
DG*SS .0001 .0009 .10 -.001 .001
R2 .04
∆R2 .00
*p< .05 Note. SS= social support, DG= disenfranchised grief

and depression. Findings confirms social support did not moderated between
disenfranchised grief and depression relationship among university students. The value
of R2 0.04 indicate that 4% variance in outcome variable is explained by the predictors
with F (3, 296) = 5.00, p< 0.01. The value of ∆R2 is 0.00 with ∆F (1, 296) = 0.01 p>
0.05 explains no variance of additional effect in disenfranchised grief. The finding
indicates that disenfranchised grief (B= 0.03 p> 0.05) social support (B= 0.02, p>0.05)
and disenfranchised grief × social support (B= 0.001, p> 0.05) has non-significant
effect on post breakup recovery.
Table 26
Mediating Role of disenfranchised grief on perceive relationship closeness and post

breakup recovery (N = 300)
Outcome IV D In
β SE LL UL β SE LL UL
DG PRC .005 .06 -.12 .13
PBR DG .17*** .03 .10 .24
PBR PRC .13*** .04 .05 .20 .02*** .012 .05 .20
***p<.001 DG= disenfranchised grief, PBR= post breakup recovery, PRC= perceive relationship
closeness
Table 26 shows direct indirect and partial mediation effect of perceive

relationship closeness on post breakup recovery through disenfranchised grief. The R2
value of 0.02 indicates that perceive relationship closeness explains 2% variance in
disenfranchised grief with F (1, 298) = 0.006, p> 0.05. The R2 value of 0.10 indicates
that disenfranchised grief and perceive relationship closeness explains 10% variance in
post breakup recovery with F (2, 297) = 16.85, p< 0.001. The direct and indirect effect
confirmed the partial mediating effect of disenfranchised grief between perceive
relationship closeness and post breakup recovery.
Disenfranchised grief
Path A b= .005 [-.12, .13] Path B b= .17 [.10, .24]
Perceive relationship
Post breakup recovery
closeness
Direct effect b= .13 [.05, .20]
Indirect effect b = .02 [.05, .20]
Figure 2. Model of disenfranchised grief as mediator between perceive

relationship closeness and post breakup recovery.
Table 27
Mediating Role of disenfranchised grief on perceive relationship closeness and

relationship thought (N = 300)
Outcome IV D In
DG PRC .005 .06 -.12 .13
RT DG .27*** .02 .22 .32
RT PRC .05 .02 -.006 .11 .001 .01 -.03 .03
***p<.001 DG= disenfranchised grief, PBR= post breakup recovery, PRC= perceive relationship
closeness

relationship closeness on relationship thought through disenfranchised grief. The R2
value of 0.00 indicates that perceive relationship closeness explains no variance in
relationship thought with F (2, 297) = 54.34, p< 0.001. The non-significant direct and
indirect effect confirms that disenfranchised grief did not mediate between perceive
relationship closeness and relationship thought.
Table 28
Mediating Role of disenfranchised grief on perceive relationship closeness and breakup

distress (N = 300)
Outcome IV D In
DG PRC .005 .06 -.12 .13
BD DG .08** .03 .01 .14
BD PRC -.06 .03 -.13 .01 .0004 .006 -.01 .01
***p<.001 DG= disenfranchised grief, PRC= perceive relationship closeness, BD= breakup distress.

relationship closeness on breakup distress through disenfranchised grief. The R2 value
of 0.00 indicates that perceive relationship closeness explains no variance in
breakup distress with F (2, 297) = 4.61, p< 0.01. The non-significant direct and indirect
effect confirmed that disenfranchised grief did not mediate between perceive
relationship closeness and breakup distress.
Table 29
Mediating Role of disenfranchised grief on perceive relationship closeness and

depression (N = 300)
Outcome IV D In
DG PRC .005 .06 -.12 .13
Dep DG .04*** .013 .02 .07
Dep PRC .03** .015 .007 .06 .0002 .003 -.007 .06
***p<.001 DG= disenfranchised grief, PRC= perceive relationship closeness, Dep= depression

relationship closeness on depression through disenfranchised grief. The R2 value of
0.00 indicates that perceive relationship closeness explains no variance in
relationship thought with F (2, 297) = 9.04, p< 0.001. The non-significant direct and
indirect effect confirmed that disenfranchised grief did not mediate between perceive
relationship closeness and depression.
Table 30
Mediating Role of disenfranchised grief on stigmatization and post breakup recovery

(N = 300)
Outcome IV D In
DG Stigma 1.41*** .07 1.27 1.55
PBR DG .16** .05 .06 .27
PBR Stigma .008 .10 -.19 .21 .23*** .07 .07 .39
***p<.001 DG= disenfranchised grief, Stigma= stigmatization, PBR= post breakup recovery
Table 30 shows direct indirect and partial mediation effect of stigmatization on

post breakup recovery through disenfranchised grief. The R2 value of 0.56 indicates
that stigmatization explains 56% variance in disenfranchised grief with F (1, 298) =
385.33, p< 0.001. The R2 value of 0.06 indicates that disenfranchised grief and
stigmatization explains 6% variance in post breakup recovery with F (2, 297) = 11.18,
p< 0.001. The indirect effect confirmed the perfect mediating effect of disenfranchised
grief between stigmatization and post breakup recovery.
.
Path A b= 1.41 [1.27 1.55] Path B b= .04 [.06 .27]
Stigmatization Post breakup recovery
Direct effect b= .10 [-.19 .21]
Indirect effect b = .23 [.07 .39]
Figure 3. Model of disenfranchised grief as mediator between stigmatization

and post breakup recovery.
Table 31
Mediating Role of disenfranchised grief on stigmatization and relationship thoughts
(N = 300)
Outcome IV D In
DG Stigma 1.41*** .07 1.27 1.55
RT DG .20*** .04 .12 .28
RT Stigma .17* .07 .02 .32 .29*** .06 .17 .41
***p<.001 *p<.05 DG= disenfranchised grief, Stigma= stigmatization, RT= relationship thoughts

relationship thought through disenfranchised grief. The R2 value of 0.56 indicates that
stigmatization explains 56% variance in disenfranchised grief with F (1, 298) = 385.33,
p< 0.001. The R2 value of 0.27 indicates that disenfranchised grief and stigmatization
explains 27% variance in relationship thoughts with F (2, 297) = 55.81, p< 0.001. The
direct indirect effect confirmed the perfect mediating effect of disenfranchised grief
between stigmatization and relationship thoughts.
Path A b= 1.41 [1.27 1.55] Path B b= .20 [.12 .28]
Stigmatization Relationship thoughts
Direct effect b= .17 [.02 .32]
Figure 4. Model of disenfranchised grief as mediator between stigmatization

and relationship thoughts.
Table 32
Mediating Role of disenfranchised grief on stigmatization and depression (N = 300)
Outcome IV D In
DG Stigma 1.41*** .07 1.27 1.55
Depression DG .009 .20 -.03 .04
Depression stigma .09** .03 .01 .17 .01 .02 -.04 .06
***p<.001 **p<.01 DG= disenfranchised grief, Stigma= stigmatization

depression through disenfranchised grief. The R2 value of 0.56 indicates that
explains 5% variance in depression with F (2, 297) = 9.10, p< 0.001. The non-
significant indirect effect confirmed that disenfranchised grief did not perfectly mediate
between stigmatization and depression.
Table 33
Mediating Role of disenfranchised grief on stigmatization and breakup distress (N =

300)
Outcome IV D In
DG Stigma 1.41*** .07 1.27 1.55
BD DG .01 .04 -.08 .11
BD stigma .16 .09 -.01 .34 .02 .06 -.11 .15
***p<0.001 **p<.01 DG= disenfranchised grief, BD= breakup distress, Stigma= stigmatization

breakup distress through disenfranchised grief. The R2 value of 0.56 indicates that
3% variance in breakup distress with F (2, 297) = 4.82, p< 0.01. The non-significant
direct and indirect effect confirmed that disenfranchised grief did not partially mediate
between stigmatization and breakup distress.
Table 34
Mediating Role of disenfranchised grief on nostalgia and post breakup recovery (N =

300)
Outcome IV D In
DG Nostalgia .44*** .10 .24 .64
PBR DG .11*** .03 .04 .18
PBR Nostalgia .46*** .06 .33 .58 .05*** .02 .01 .09
***p<.001 DG= disenfranchised grief, PBR= post breakup recovery
Table 34 shows direct indirect and partial mediation effect of nostalgia on post
breakup recovery through disenfranchised grief. The R2 value of 0.58 indicates that
nostalgia explains 58% variance in disenfranchised grief with F (1, 298) = 18.56, p<
0.001. The R2 value of 0.20 indicates that disenfranchised grief and nostalgia explains
20% variance in post breakup recovery with F (2, 297) = 38.89, p< 0.001. The direct
and indirect effect confirmed the partial mediating effect of disenfranchised grief
between nostalgia and post breakup recovery.
Path A b= .44 [.24 .64] Path B b= .11 [.04 .18]
Nostalgia Post breakup recovery
Figure 5. Model of disenfranchised grief as mediator between nostalgia and post

breakup recovery.
Table 35
Mediating Role of disenfranchised grief on nostalgia and relationship thoughts (N =

300)
Outcome IV D In
DG Nostalgia .44*** .10 .24 .64
RT DG .22*** .02 .17 .27
RT Nostalgia .37*** .04 .28 .46 .10*** .02 .04 .16
***p<.001 DG= disenfranchised grief, RT= relationship thoughts
Table 35 shows direct indirect and partial mediation effect of nostalgia on

relationship thought through disenfranchised grief. The R2 value of 0.58 indicates that
39% variance in relationship thoughts with F (2, 297) = 97.82, p< 0.001. The direct
and indirect effect confirmed the partial mediating effect of disenfranchised grief
between nostalgia and relationship thoughts.
Path A b= .44 [.24 .64] Path B b= .22 [.17 .27]
Nostalgia Relationship thoughts
Figure 6. Model of disenfranchised grief as mediator between nostalgia and

relationship thoughts.
Table 36
Mediating Role of disenfranchised grief on nostalgia and breakup distress (N = 300)
Outcome IV D In
DG Nostalgia .44*** .10 .24 .64
BD DG .09** .03 .02 .15
BD Nostalgia -.07 .06 -.19 .05 .04* .01 .008 .08
***p<.001 **p<.01 *p<.05 DG= disenfranchised grief, BD= breakup distress

breakup distress through disenfranchised grief. The R2 value of 0.58 indicates that
2% variance in breakup distress with F (2, 297) = 3.87, p< 0.05. The indirect effect
confirmed the perfect mediating effect of disenfranchised grief between nostalgia and
breakup distress.
Path A b= .44 [.24 .64] Path B b= .09 [.02 .15]
Nostalgia Breakup distress
Direct effect b= -.07 [-.19 .05]

breakup distress.
Table 37
Mediating Role of disenfranchised grief on nostalgia and depression (N = 300)
Outcome IV D In
DG Nostalgia .44*** .10 .24 .64
Depression DG .03** .01 .006 .06
Depression Nostalgia .10*** .02 .05 .15 .01*** .007 .001 .03
***p<.001 **p<.01 DG= disenfranchised grief

depression through disenfranchised grief. The R2 value of 0.58 indicates that nostalgia
explains 58% variance in disenfranchised grief with F (1, 298) = 18.56, p< 0.001. The
R2 value of 0.09 indicates that disenfranchised grief and nostalgia explains 9% variance
in depression with F (2, 297) = 14.89, p< 0.001. The direct and indirect effect confirmed
the partial mediating effect of disenfranchised grief between nostalgia and depression.
Path A b= .44 [.24 .64] Path B b= .03 [.006 .06]
Nostalgia Depression

depression.
Table 38
Gender Differences in Present Study Variables (N=300)
Male Female 95% CL

Variable M SD M SD t (299) LL UL Cohen’s d
DG 32.44 17.05 37.53 17.53 2.55** 1.16 9.02 0.29
Stigma 25.26 9.14 25.61 9.28 .33 -1.75 2.45 0.03
PRC 35.92 15.61 34.75 15.53 -.64 -4.73 2.39 0.07
SOC 33.98 7.56 35.37 6.81 1.64 -.27 3.04 0.19
PBR 27.75 11.17 27.51 11.66 -.18 -2.84 2.35 0.02
RT 29.78 8.58 31.84 10.13 1.91* -.06 4.18 0.21
BD 41.07 9.92 42.33 9.99 .54 -1.64 2.90 0.12
Depression 8.57 4.25 7.86 4.06 -1.4 -1.65 .24 0.17
Nostalgia 24.77 9.39 25.24 9.39 .43 -1.67 2.62 0.05
SS 43.13 14.04 45.50 16.46 1.34 -1.16 5.82 0.15
***p< .001. **p<.01. *p<.05. Note. DG= Disenfranchised Grief; PRC= Perceived Relationship
Closeness; SOC= Sense of Coherence; PBS= Post Breakup Recovery; RT= Relationship Thoughts;
BD= Breakup Distress; SS= Social Support.
For the research variables, the male and female means, SDs, and t-values are
shown in Table 38. t (299) = 2.55, p <.01, indicates that the results show significant
variations in the mean on disenfranchised grieving. According to the results, women
greatly outperformed men in terms of disenfranchised sadness. Additionally, t (299) =
1.19 p <.05. indicates a significant mean difference on relationship thoughts. The results
indicate that females scored high than males in terms of relationship thoughts.
Table 39
Family system Differences in Present Study Variables (N=300)
Nuclear Joint 95% CL

DG 33.08 16.90 36.93 17.78 -1.90* -7.82 .13 0.22
Stigma 24.87 9.00 26.20 9.44 -1.23 -3.44 .79 0.14
PRC 35.45 15.10 35.36 16.27 .049 -3.50 3.68 0.00
SOC 35.12 7.46 33.80 6.93 1.54 -.35 2.98 0.18
PBR 27.04 11.58 28.54 11.03 -1.12 -4.11 1.12 0.13
RT 30.11 9.24 31.49 9.43 -1.26 -3.52 .77 0.14
BD 42.27 10.37 41.54 9.30 .632 -1.55 3.03 0.07
Depression 7.87 3.83 8.83 4.59 -1.96 -1.91 .001 0.22
Nostalgia 23.56 8.64 27.04 10.05 -3.21*** -5.61 -1.35 0.37
SS 42.55 14.39 46.51 15.98 -2.24** -7.43 -.42 0.26
Closeness; SOC= Sense of Coherence; PBS= Post Breakup Recovery; RT= Relationship Thoughts; BD=
Breakup Distress; SS= Social Support.
The nuclear and joint family systems' means, SDs, and t-values for the study
variables are shown in Table 39. With t (299) = -1.90, p <.05., the results show
significant variations in the mean on disenfranchised grieving. The results suggest that
young adults from joint family systems considerably outperformed than students from
nuclear family systems in terms of disenfranchised grieving. Additionally, with t (299)
= -3.21 p<.001, the results show a significant variation in the mean on nostalgia. The
results demonstrate that students from mixed family systems considerably
outperformed students from nuclear family systems in terms of nostalgia. Additionally,
t (299) = -2.24 p<.01 indicates a significant variation in mean on social support. The
results demonstrate that students from mixed family systems considerably achieved
excellent grades.
Table 40
Residence Differences in Present Study Variables (N=300)
Urban Rural 95% CL

DG 32.50 17.15 37.78 17.20 -2.62*** -9.24 -1.32 0.30
Stigma 24.56 9.00 26.65 9.36 -1.95* -4.20 .018 0.22
PRC 35.63 15.61 35.09 15.54 .29 -3.05 4.13 0.03
SOC 34.70 7.06 34.41 7.59 .34 -1.38 1.97 0.03
PBR 29.01 10.62 25.67 12.15 2.52** .734 5.92 0.29
RT 30.66 8.49 30.68 10.46 -.01 -2.17 2.13 0.00
BD 41.71 9.28 42.36 10.86 -.55 -2.94 1.64 0.06
Depression 8.47 3.93 7.96 4.50 1.04 -.453 1.47 0.12
Nostalgia 24.91 8.72 25.08 10.31 -.16 -2.34 1.99 0.01
SS 44.30 14.06 43.96 16.68 .19 -3.15 3.84 0.02
Closeness; SOC= Sense of Coherence; PBS= Post Breakup Recovery; RT= Relationship Thoughts; BD=
Breakup Distress; SS= Social Support.
For the study variables, the means, SDs, and t-values for urban and rural
residency are shown in Table 40. With t (299) = -2.62, p<.001, the results show
significant variations in the mean on disenfranchised grieving. The results suggest that
students from rural residences considerably outperformed pupils from urban residences
on the disenfranchised grieving scale. Additionally, stigmatization data show a
significant mean difference with t (299) = -1.95 p<.05. The findings show that students
belonging from rural residence significantly scored high on stigmatization as compared
to students belonging from urban residence. Furthermore, the results indicate
significant mean difference on post breakup recovery with t (299) = -2.52 p< .01. The
findings show that students belonging from urban residence significantly scored high
on stigmatization as compared to students belonging from rural residence.
Table 41
Mean, Standard Deviation and F-values of Education on Study Variables (N=300)
Variables Undergraduate Graduate Post graduate F η² Post Hoc

M SD M SD M SD
DG 34.45 16.58 34.15 18.41 35.38 19.15 .074 .00 -
Stigma 26.23 8.98 24.21 8.93 24.19 11.68 1.76 .01 -
PRC 35.44 15.32 35.09 15.57 36.67 18.10 .09 .00 -
SOC 34.21 7.51 34.94 6.35 36.10 9.16 .81 .00 -
PBR 27.13 11.52 28.90 10.83 26.10 12.54 .99 .00 -
RT 30.83 8.66 30.57 10.25 29.81 10.52 .12 .00 -
BD 42.13 10.07 41.81 9.12 41.38 12.73 .07 .00 -
Depression 8.76 4.40 7.50 3.44 7.67 4.91 3.17* .02 1>3>2
Nostalgia 24.43 9.13 25.56 9.72 26.86 9.91 .92 .00 -
SS 42.82 14.82 45.32 14.51 50.14 19.43 2.66 .01 -
Table 41 demonstrate mean, standard deviation and F-values on study variables.

Results indicate significant mean differences on depression with {F (2,297) = 3.17, p<
.05}. the results showed that students with undergraduate education have high
depression as compare to graduate and post graduate education. Further the results
showed non-significant mean differences on disenfranchised grief, stigmatization, post
breakup recovery, sense of coherence, perceive relationship closeness, relationship
thoughts, breakup distress, nostalgia and social support.
Table 42
Mean, Standard Deviation and F-values of Age on Study Variables (N=300)
Variables 18-23 24-29 30-35 F η² Post Hoc

M SD M SD M SD
DG 32.86 17.61 36.03 16.80 40.72 16.00 3.25* .02 3>2>1
Stigma 25.02 9.33 25.93 8.85 26.09 9.55 .39 .00 -
PRC 35.60 14.38 34.38 16.07 37.28 20.16 .44 .00 -
SOC 34.55 7.71 34.44 5.99 35.16 8.16 .11 .00 -
PBR 29.25 10.79 24.69 11.86 27.65 11.36 5.00 .04 -
RT 30.09 8.89 29.68 9.78 31.16 10.42 .73 .00 -
BD 40.99 9.61 43.44 9.89 43.28 11.46 2.15 .01 -
Depression 8.61 4.15 7.82 4.08 7.53 4.50 1.63 .01 -
Nostalgia 24.96 8.57 23.64 10.63 28.91 9.18 3.8** .03 3>1>2
SS 43.03 13.05 44.00 17.12 50.94 18.60 3.76* .02 3>2>1

Results indicate significant mean differences on disenfranchised grief with {F (2,297)
= 3.25, p< .05}. The results showed that students of 30-35 age group have high
disenfranchised grief as compare to other age groups. Moreover, the results indicate
significant mean differences on nostalgia with {F= (2, 297) = 3.8, p<.01}. The results
showed that students of 30-35 age group experience high nostalgia as compare to other
age groups. Further the results showed significant mean differences on social support
with {F= (2, 297) = 3.76, p<.05}. The results showed that students of age 30-35 has
high social support as compare to other age groups. Lastly, the results showed non-
significant mean differences on stigmatization, post breakup recovery, sense of
coherence, perceive relationship closeness, relationship thoughts, breakup distress and
depression.
Table 43
Mean, Standard Deviation and F-values of Time Since Breakup on Study Variables
(N=300)
Variables More than week More than More than year F η² Post Hoc
month
M SD M SD M SD
DG 34.74 16.72 35.08 17.88 33.88 17.38 .12 .02 -
Stigma 25.48 9.60 25.71 9.28 24.85 8.64 .22 .03 -

PRC 34.74 16.17 37.76 15.76 32.54 14.07 2.93* .01 2>1>3
SOC 35.96 7.05 33.54 7.35 34.59 7.20 3.03* .02 1>3>2
PBR 28.26 10.02 28.83 10.78 25.10 13.31 2.88* .01 2>1>3
RT 30.74 8.83 31.81 9.08 28.83 10.07 2.54 .01 -
BD 44.47 8.55 39.57 10.29 42.78 10.16 7.23*** .04 1>3>2
Depression 8.22 4.14 8.78 4.37 7.51 3.81 2.31 .01 -
Nostalgia 26.46 8.03 25.30 9.94 22.73 9.64 3.65* .02 3>1>2
SS 44.86 15.15 44.22 14.43 43.25 16.37 .24 .00 -
Table 43 demonstrate mean, standard deviation and f-values on study variables.
Results indicate significant mean differences on perceive relationship closeness with
{F (2,297) = 2.93, p< .05}. The results showed that students with more than month time
span since breakup have high perceive relationship closeness as compare to other
groups. Moreover, the results indicate significant mean differences on sense of
coherence with {F= (2, 297) = 3.03, p<.01}. The results showed that students with more
than week time span since breakup have high sense of coherence as compare to other
groups. Further the results showed significant mean differences on post breakup
recovery with {F= (2, 297) = 2.88, p<.05}. The results showed that students with more
than month time span since breakup have high post breakup recovery as compare to
other groups. Also, the results showed significant mean differences on breakup distress
with {F= (2, 297) = 7.23, p<.001}. The results showed that students with more than
week time span since breakup have high breakup distress as compare to other groups.
Moreover, the results showed significant mean differences on nostalgia with {F= (2,
297) = 3.65, p<.05}. The results showed that students with more than year time span
since breakup have high nostalgia as compare to other groups. Lastly, the results
showed non-significant mean differences on disenfranchised grief, stigmatization,
relationship thoughts, depression and social support.
Table 44
Mean, Standard Deviation and F-values of Relationship Duration on Study Variables (N=300)
Variables More than week More than month More than year More than 3 years F η² Post Hoc
M SD M SD M SD M SD
DG 33.94 18.47 33.11 17.29 35.43 16.84 42.15 17.62 1.20 .00 -
Stigma 26.83 10.28 24.40 8.95 25.70 8.77 25.08 10.85 .89 .00 -
PRC 34.02 15.04 35.59 16.67 35.95 14.30 34.00 21.25 .23 .01 -
SOC 35.58 7.05 34.86 7.83 34 6.97 34.23 6.43 .66 .02 -
PBR 28.37 10.40 25.34 12.70 28.92 10.51 30.77 9.72 2.43 .01 -
RT 30.54 9.34 27.85 9.44 32.56 8.73 35.23 8.58 6.38*** .01 4>3>1>2
BD 43.60 8.81 41.68 11.12 41.78 9.03 39.85 12.83 .70 .04 -
Depression 8.52 3.45 7.27 4.59 9 3.82 7.85 5.42 3.53* .01 3>1>4>2
Nostalgia 24.08 8.33 23.45 10.15 26.31 9.03 27.54 8.76 2.32 .02 -
SS 41.40 12.22 40.11 16.44 47.10 13.58 58.62 16.32 9.39 .00 -
***p< .001, *p<.05 Note. DG= Disenfranchised Grief; PRC= Perceived Relationship Closeness; SOC= Sense of Coherence; PBS= Post Breakup Recovery; RT=
Relationship Thoughts; BD= Breakup Distress; SS= Social Support.
Results indicate significant mean differences on relationship thought with {F (3,296) =
2.93, p< .001}. The results showed that students with more than 3 years relationship
duration have high relationship thoughts as compare to other groups. Moreover, the
results indicate significant mean differences on depression with {F= (3, 296) = 3.53,
p<.01}. The results showed that students with more than year relationship duration have
high depression as compare to other groups. Lastly, the results showed non-significant
mean differences on disenfranchised grief, stigmatization, perceive relationship
closeness, sense of coherence, post breakup recovery, breakup distress, nostalgia and
social support.
CHAPTER IV
Discussion
The present study was aimed to explore the predictors and outcomes of
disenfranchised grief among university students after breakup. The study explored
perceived relationship closeness, stigmatization and nostalgia as the predictors of
disenfranchised grief while relationship thoughts, personal growth, breakup distress
and depression as the outcomes of disenfranchised grief. Further, it was intended to
discover mediation and moderation role of sense of coherence and social support on
disenfranchised grief. The psychometric qualities of instruments were assessed prior to
examining the association between study variables. Reliability and descriptive statistics
were ensured for this purpose. Alpha reliability is based on covariance between the
components for non-standardized items. The low to moderate levels of distinct scales'
standard deviations give a signal that the scale's mean was a good approximation of its
parameters.
For all scales and subscales, the values of skewness and kurtosis were obtained,
confirming that the data was normally distributed. The values of skewness and kurtosis
should be smaller than +1 and -1, respectively. Scale elements that exceeds this limit
should be considered problematic and removed from the data. The study's findings
revealed that the study variable's data was about regularly distributed. Cronbach's alpha
coefficients were used to determine the internal consistency of all of the study
instruments used in this investigation. The alphas coefficient revealed that all of the
instruments were quite reliable. The relationship between the current study factors was
investigated, and it was discovered that the study variables were correlated in expected
ways. Furthermore, two key premises for conducting additional regression analysis to
test the hypothesis are the normality of the data and the theoretically in-line correlation
coefficients in the variables. Thus, following the resolution of these issues, the main
study analysis was conducted.
The current study explore the predictors of disenfranchised grief. The findings
show that stigmatization is the significant predictor of disenfranchised grief. Literature
also support this correlations, when an intimate partner relationship ends, grieving can
lead to the sense that other people's responses are stigmatizing. These findings are
comparable to the association between stigmatization and grieving among survivors of
suicide loss. Stigmatization of other loss events has not been extensively studied
because most recent research has focused on stigmatization after a suicide loss
(Hanschmidt et al., 2016). Specific loss occurrences are more frequently linked to
stigmatised reactions than categories of disenfranchised mourning. Many works of
literature (Hanschmidt et al., 2016) analyse loss caused by suicide at the intersection of
grieving and stigma. The intensity of grieving symptoms and unfavourable responses
from society are strongly positively correlated, according to research on stigma and
suicide death (Johnson et al., 2009). Moreover, the emergence of various identities may
make perceived stigmatization worse. People in the LGBTQ community, for instance,
could experience greater grief in part as a result of ongoing identity-based
stigmatization. It is widely known that amongst this population, feelings of
stigmatization are linked to poor health outcomes like depression and anxiousness
(Felner et al., 2018).
Further, the regression analysis also show that nostalgia also predicts the
disenfranchised grief. When people experience nostalgia, they are actually reflecting
on and interpreting past events in a way that allows them to carry their lives forward
(Wildschut et al., 2006), despite the fact that nostalgia is a past-oriented emotion that
might occasionally contain an urge to return to the past (Hepper et al., 2012). Despite
the fact that all partnerships involving an ex-partner end in a breakup, this is usually a
bad thing, especially when there was a lot of emotional investment in the union, the
more emotionally invested people are, the more painful the breakup. (Merolla et al.,
2004).
Moreover, the regression analysis shows that perceive relationship closeness is

non significant predictor of disenfranchised grief. Greater the relationship closeness,
higher the level of grief after the breakup. This relationship is consistent with the prior
findings of the researches (Servaty-Seib & Pistole, 2007). The non-marital relationship
ending was strongly correlated with the severity of the sadness. According to the Pew
Research Center's findings, society could maintain the trend toward acknowledging
traditionally unconventional partnerships as the U.S. sheds its taboos on long-term
relationships without getting married or living together before marriage. In
consequently, this could reinforce the idea that people going through a non-marital
separation can feel sad, which would lessen the amount of suffering caused by
disenfranchised losses (Reimer, 2019).
The present study also aimed to explore the outcomes of disenfranchised Grief.
The findings show that disenfranchised grief is a significant predictor of post breakup
recovery. The results also showed that post breakup recovery or personal growth shows
significant positive relation with disenfranchised grief. There haven't been many studies
that specifically addressed how ending a romantic relationship might improve one's life.
Even while breakups have been called one of life's most unpleasant occurrences, they
also give people the chance to grow and change in positive ways, such as improving
their priorities in terms of interpersonal relationships and self-perception (Tashiro &
Frazier, 2003). The relationship among breakup role and post-breakup pleasant
experiences and personal growth has been studied in the past with varying degrees of
success. According to Buehler's (1987) research, participants who started a divorce had
a higher likelihood of reporting personal progress than divorce beneficiaries.
Further the relationship thoughts is also predicted by disenfranchised grief.

Even though recalling negative or even hurtful aspects of the relationship may be
upsetting at the time, doing so may also reduce one's attachment to the partner and
promote aspects of post-breakup growth, such as the rediscovery of one's own identity
(Lewandowski & Bizzoco, 2007) and optimistic psychological adjustment which make
moving on from the breakup and accepting it easier. Thus, how we feel about of our
thoughts about our ex-relationships may have an impact on how quickly we heal from
the end of a relationship (Saffrey & Ehrenberg, 2007). In terms of cognition, students
report having more intrusive and negative thoughts, which are strongly linked to grief
connected to breakups (Boelen & Reijntjes, 2009).
Also the findings show that breakup distress is predicted by disenfranchised

grief. Events that people feel they have some control over are regarded as less upsetting
than those that they feel they have no control over (Frazier & Cook, 1993). Therefore,
whether someone caused the breakup or was the partner they broke up with might help
anticipate how severe their reaction will be when they go through a split. According to
numerous research, those who disengage express less breakup misery than those who
receive it, and those who were part of mutually ending relationships did not express as
much pain as those who were the recipients of the breakup (Morris et al., 2015). Lastly,
the findings shows that disenfranchised grief is a significant predictor of depression.
According to researches, the closer a relationship was reported to be, the longer it lasted,
and the amount of time since it ended, the more grieving and distressed people felt.
Additionally, after the end of an intimate partner connection, young individuals may
later encounter mental health problems including depression. (Davis et al., 2003).
Moreover, moderating analysis was executed which shows that sense of

coherence moderated the relationship between perceive relationship closeness and
disenfranchised grief. The sense of coherence shows a negative correlation with
disenfranchised grief. Higher the sense of coherence lesser will be the disenfranchised
grief. According to studies, persons who have well-built sense of coherence are less
susceptible to stressful events because they have a diverse range of coping mechanisms
at their disposal and are flexible enough to choose the best one for the situation (Braun
and Sagy, 2014). The non-marital relationship ending was strongly correlated with the
severity of the sadness. Perceived relationship closeness and sense of coherence
combine have a negative effect on disenfranchised grief. The perceive relationship
closeness effect on disenfranchised grief is decreased by sense of coherence. People's
perceptions of the quality of their current relationships may rise as a result of their self-
growth beliefs. This forecast has indirect support from a number of sources. Self-
Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) has underlined the important role of growth
in close relationships. Self-determination was conceptualized by Knee and colleagues
(2002) as a motive for relationship improvement.
Also the moderating analysis was executed which shows that sense of coherence
moderated the relationship between stigmatization and disenfranchised grief. Specific
loss occurrences are more frequently linked to stigmatised reactions than categories of
disenfranchised mourning. The higher the sense of coherence the lower will be the
impact of stigmatisation on a person who have gone through a breakup phase and will
ultimately cause less disenfranchised grief. According to Sheehy (2012), a griever's lack
of interpersonal openness as a result of feeling stigmatised can have an impact on the
kind and quantity of support that is provided. Grieving people continue to experience
feelings of shame, invalidation, and guilt as long as society upholds these laws of
bereavement (Vogel et al., 2013).
Further the moderating analysis shows that sense of coherence did not
moderated between nostalgia and disenfranchised grief. Nostalgia fosters good affect,
boosts self-esteem, and strengthens social connections, to name just a few of its effects.
When reassuring people that they are socially competent and that there are some people
in their life who value them, nostalgic recollections help people feel like they belong
and are connected (Wildschut et al., 2010). nostalgic recollections also encourage
people to embrace and pursue societal objectives. Nostalgia regarding a previous
relationship does not imply that people are still harboring romantic feelings for them or
considering them to be a desirable alternative. Contrarily, nostalgia is the human
capacity to draw comfort from the memories of dear ones in the past in order to promote
social connectedness in the present (Sedikides et al., 2015).
Moreover, the moderating analysis evaluated that relationship between

disenfranchised grief and it outcomes which shows that the social support did not
moderated any of these analysis. The grieving process becomes more difficult when it
is not recognized or publicly acknowledged. Undoubtedly, a griever becomes more
alone and estranged when they cannot accept the help, consolation, and support of
family and friends. Furthermore, Worden (1982), emphasized that acknowledging the
truth of the death is one of the duties that mourners must fulfill. Whether someone
initiated the breakup or was the partner being broken up with can help to some extent
forecast how severely they will respond after experiencing a breakup. According to
numerous research, disengagers experience less breakup pain than recipients (Davis et
al., 2003). Sprecher (1994) looked into how partners in a similar relationship differed
in their post-breakup beneficial and detrimental impact, providing an uncommon look
at both sides of a split. Positive emotions like love and pleasure were also expressed,
but negative emotions like hurt, irritation, melancholy, and loneliness were felt more
strongly.
Additionally, the results shows the mediating effect of disenfranchised grief

between perceive relationship closeness and post breakup recovery. The direct and
indirect effect shows variance in post breakup recovery. The findings shows that
perceive relationship close is significantly positively correlated with post breakup
growth. And indirect effect shows little effect on post breakup recovery. People who
have a fixed mindset frequently think they can't change and that their future will look
very similar to the past. Accordingly, those who have a fixed perspective are more prone
to cling on to the idea that their former partner is their genuine love, harbor unresolved
desire for them, and possibly still feel an emotional bond to them. In contrast, those
who have a development mentality frequently think they can develop and evolve
(Dweck, 2008).
Further it is showed that stigmatisation increase relationship thoughts with the
mediating role of disenfranchised grief. The study shows direct and indirect effect of
stigmatisation on relationship thoughts. Higher the level of stigmatization will result in
higher level of disenfranchised grief which ultimately causes negative thoughts about
the past relationship. A significant number of studies on relationship breakups have
made the assumption that the content of previous relationships is exclusively negatively
valanced. Despite the fact that research (Fagundes, 2012) has demonstrated that
remembering the breakup and past relationship is linked with greater anxiety,
discomfort, distress and poor emotional adjustment. The disenfranchised grief also
mediated between stigmatization and post breakup recovery. Higher the level of
stigmatisation by the society the greater will be the level of disenfranchised grief and
their collective effect will cause less post breakup recovery. Sprecher (1994) looked
into how partners in the same relationship differed in their post-breakup positive and
negative impact, providing an uncommon look at both sides of a split. Positive emotions
like love and relief were also expressed, but negative emotions like hurt, irritation,
melancholy, and loneliness were felt more strongly.
The mediation analysis also showed that nostalgia and post breakup recovery
relation was mediated by disenfranchised grief. The results of the research conducted
by Ai, (2019), tend to be more consistent with those of the nostalgia research and less
consistent with the negative impacts of ex-partners identified in the literature on close
relationships. Contrary to earlier research that demonstrated that persons with low
attachment avoidance experienced larger nostalgia effects (Spielmann et al., 2013). ,
the emotional content of our ex-relationship thoughts may have an impact on how
quickly we recover back from a breakup. Also the disenfranchised grief mediated
between nostalgia and relationship thoughts. The indirect relationship shows higher
negative relationship thoughts. Although studies have shown that reflecting on the split
and the ex-relationship is linked to increased anxiety, uncertainty, tension, despair, and
inadequate psychological adjustment (Fagundes, 2012). Additionally, studies have
demonstrated a link between negative episodes in relationships, such as a conflict, and
a decrease in relationship satisfaction and partner forgiveness (Kachadourian et al.,
2005). Moreover, the disenfranchised grief mediate between nostalgia and breakup
distress, depression. People may still harbor unresolved romantic feelings for the ex-
partners even after their previous relationships have ended (Rodriguez et al., 2016). An
individual may regard a recent ex-partner as an attractive relationship alternative, which
could have negative impacts on the quality of their current relationship. In terms of
cognition, students report having more intrusive and negative thoughts, which are
strongly linked to grief connected to breakups (Boelen & Reijntjes, 2009).
Moreover, the present study intended to explore the demographic characteristics

of the study variables. Through the findings of study, it is indicated that there is a
significant gender difference on disenfranchised grief and relationship thoughts.
Findings on gender variations in the feeling and expression of sorrow are frequently
contradictory. Worden (2018) contends that socialization, rather than intrinsic gender
differences, is more important in determining higher mourning outcomes, with social
support, coping mechanisms, and cognitive processes probably playing a part in the
discernible gender difference. According to several other research women were more
distressed and negatively affected by the circumstance. In addition, it was discovered
that women were substantially more emotionally invested before the breakup and were
more likely to experience high levels of distress as a result (Davis et al., 2003).
Compared to males, women do report symptoms and emotional discomfort more
frequently. This did not appear to be a result of them feeling less stigmatized or a desire
to gain acceptance (Angst et al., 1984). The depression has a significant relationship
with negative relationship thoughts after a breakup. Despite the fact that research
(Fagundes, 2012) has demonstrated that remembering the breakup and past relationship
is linked with greater anxiety, discomfort, distress and poor emotional adjustment.
There would be significant mean difference for family system on

disenfranchised grief, nostalgia and social support. Students said that they would
probably be less inclined to seek support from peers, family, or professionals for losses
unrelated to death since they anticipate receiving less acknowledgement from others.
According to the content review of the nostalgic memories, the memories are
highlighted by occasions and moments when people were surrounded by loved ones
(Wildschut et al., 2006). According to Sharp et al. (2018), peer support can help
grieving people make up for absent or limited family support. The quality and pleasure
of a person's support are more crucial for positive results in contrast to the amount or
the presence of such assistance, even though it is outside the purview of this study,
according to Worden (2018). The results also show significant variations in the mean
on disenfranchised grieving, stigmatization and post breakup recovery. Students
belonging from urban areas are more prone to disenfranchised grief, stigmatization
because they are more connected to society and are more engaged in non-marital
relationships in universities. An so living in urban areas, they have more facilities than
rural areas. They can take support from counseling center to overcome their distress
and discomfort resulting from breakup. In terms of education, the undergraduate
students who are younger adults experience depression because of their relationship
breakup. Building and maintaining romantic connections is essential throughout the
early years of adulthood (Arnett, 2000).
Moreover, results indicate significant mean differences on perceive relationship

closeness, sense of coherence, post breakup recovery, distress and nostalgia in term of
time since breakup. The results showed that students with more than month time span
since breakup have high perceive relationship closeness as compare to other groups.
According to Kelley and colleagues (1983), relationship closeness can be thought of as
varying along a single continuum. Moreover, results showed that students with more
than week time span since breakup have high sense of coherence as compare to other
groups. The results showed that students with more than month time span since breakup
have high post breakup recovery as compare to other groups. The results showed that
students with more than week time span since breakup have high breakup distress as
compare to other groups. Time since the breakup of the relationship and grieving
severity are significantly inversely correlated. Additionally, as people finish additional
years of college, the severity of their sadness seems to diminish (Reimer, 2019).
Lastly the results indicated the significant mean difference on relationship

thoughts and depression in terms of duration of the relationship and non significant
relation with other study variables. The literature supports that relationship duration has
non significant relation (Wrape, 2012). According to respose styles theory of depression
how a person reacts to events determines the length, extent, and nature of their
depression (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1987). A person in a bad circumstance will experience a
protracted bad mood due in part to persistent thought, which will suppress their
motivation to take action and fix problems. In a study where confusion of one's own
feelings and those of others was a major predictor of suffering following a relationship
breakup (Boelen & van den Hout, 2010), the length of time as a predictor was once
again supported.
Conclusion
The present study was aimed to explore the predictors and outcomes of
disenfranchised grief among university students after breakup. The study explored
perceived relationship closeness, stigmatization and nostalgia as the significant
predictors of disenfranchised grief while relationship thoughts, personal growth,
breakup distress and depression as significant the outcomes of disenfranchised grief.
Further, it was intended to discover mediation and moderation role of sense of
coherence and social support on disenfranchised grief.
The mediating analysis was conducted between perceive relationship closeness,

disenfranchised grief and post breakup recovery which demonstrate that perceive
relationship close is significantly positively correlated with post breakup growth. And
indirect effect shows little effect on post breakup recovery. Also the mediating analysis
between disenfranchised grief, stigmatization and relationship thoughts. Higher the
level of stigmatization will result in higher level of disenfranchised grief which
ultimately causes negative thoughts about the past relationship. The disenfranchised
grief also mediated between stigmatization and post breakup recovery. Higher the level
of stigmatisation by the society the greater will be the level of disenfranchised grief and
their collective effect will cause less post breakup recovery. The mediation analysis also
showed that nostalgia and post breakup recovery relation was mediated by
disenfranchised grief. Also the disenfranchised grief mediated between nostalgia and
relationship thoughts. The indirect relationship shows higher negative relationship
thoughts. Moreover, the disenfranchised grief mediate between nostalgia and breakup
distress, depression.
Further, the moderation analysis was also conducted between disenfranchised

grief, its predictors and sense of coherence. The findings shows that higher the sense of
coherence lower will be the level of disenfranchised grief. The moderation analysis
between disenfranchised grief, its outcomes and social support is conducted, which
shows that social support help in post breakup recovery and reduce negative outcomes
of disenfranchised grief. The results of demographic analysis showed that females are
more likely to suffer from disenfranchised grief that males. Moreover, disenfranchised
grief has non significant results time since breakup and relationship duration.
Limitations and Suggestions

1. As all the scale were translated in urdu, because of the concept that urdu is more easy
to understand, participants of the study faces difficulty in understanding the statements.
For which meanings of the statements were told to them. It is suggested that scales
version (english/urdu) should be finalized according to the sample understanding.
2. Responses should be collected from bigger cities like Lahore, Islamabad, Faislabad etc
because engaging in non-marital relationship is more common there. The students
belonging from universities of there areas will give more accurate response.
3. Questionnaire length is too much that there are more than 100 items, some participants
fill it randomly or inappropriately, so all these inaccurate responses are excluded from
the study, which decrease the sample size and lower the generalizability. It is suggesteg
that questionnaire length should be less which could be easily filled by the respondant
and not cause boredom in them.
4. Known participants did not gave accurate responses for which it is suggested that data
should be collected from stranger or unknown participants.
5. Instead of gathering data from university students, college students should be included
in study sample.
6. After responding to the questionnaire some participant faces distress because of their
breakup. It is suggested that along with quantitative, qualitative research should be
done.
7. The causality of the dependent variables cannot be ensured because the study was a
survey. Therefore, academics in the future shouldn't rely solely on survey research. It is
somewhat advised that they adopt a multi-method approach.
Implications
The results of this investigation have significant applications. This study offers
new researchers an opportunity to investigate these concepts in Pakistani culture and
how members of various ethnicities within Pakistani culture react to them. as emerging
young adults are engaging more in non-marital relationships and with the same ratio
they are having breakups. The current study offers a clearer and more focused
perspective on grieving that is denied rights. Future studies could benefit from building
on the results of this one in order to create suitable experimental techniques to better
comprehend the fundamental function of social support in relation to disenfranchised
grief. The basic purpose of this study will serve include awareness in people about
disenfranchised grief and how by acknowledging the other’s people grief, they can help
them. Students’ academic progress could be improved by giving them awareness about
its impacts. Distress from breakups cause decline in students’ academic progress. More
studies are required to learn more about disenfranchised grief, and evidence-based
therapies should be investigated.

Thesis 1st Draft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Thesis 1st Draft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis 1st Draft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSYCHOLOGICAL PREDICTORS AND OUTCOMES OF

DISENFRANCHISED GRIEF AFTER BREAKUP AMONG UNIVERSITY

A universal response to loss is grief. Depending on things like personal

Disenfranchised sorrow is stated as "grief that persons experience when they

According to American research, a person's usual grieving process after a loss

According to the DSM-5, this type of complicated sorrow, also known as

Cognitive. Increased rumination, denial, or bewilderment are a few frequently

Physical. Lastly, grief is typically accompanied by a variety of physical

When a person adopts the unfavourable thoughts and emotions connected to

Worden (2018) describes several responses that survivors of suicide loss or

According to participant endorsements (Feigelman et al., 2011; Gökler-

Perceived Closeness of Relationship

The perceived closeness of relationships between couples has historically been

In intimate, loving relationships, closeness and intimacy are almost

Sense of coherence is how well someone manages stress. Comprehensibility,

Post-Breakup Recovery and Personal Growth

Many research that examined at relationship dissolution have prioritised the

People's perceptions of the quality of their current relationships may rise as a

When we think of anything, we extrapolate our feelings to how we are feeling

The level of compassion that breakup recipients attribute to various breakup

Mourning has such a significant impact on students' lives, it is crucial to

Depression is a low mental condition characterized by misery, trouble paying

According to studies on cognition, students report having more intrusive and

Worden (2018) describes several responses that survivors of suicide loss or

After beginning a new romantic relationship, people may continue to interact

Nostalgic memories involve both bitter sweet emotions, while sweet

While nostalgia is linked to a past-oriented feeling, the focus of nostalgia is

The ego is a major focus of nostalgic recollections, and themes of personal

Socially acceptable methods of grieving have a significant influence on how

This study's objective is to investigate the psychological predictors and

In academic counseling center settings, problems with romantic relationships

People can have either a fixed or a development mentality, according to Dweck

This research could be beneficial for describing the impact of Demographical

Perceived Post breakup

Sense of coherence Social support

Figure.1 representing the predictors and outcomes of Disenfranchised grief.

Objectives of the study are:

1. To investigate predictors and outcomes of disenfranchised grief after breakup

Disenfranchised sorrow is pain experienced by people when they endure a loss

Stigma is event which "discredits" a person and eventually reduces a "whole

Perceived Relationship Closeness

Sense of coherence is defined as how well someone manages stress

Post-Breakup Recovery and Personal Growth

After a breakup, a person might think of their prior relationship (Field

When a romantic relationship ends on its own, it frequently causes distress

Depression is a low mental condition characterized by misery, trouble paying

Nostalgia is described as a sentimental yearning or wistful affection of past

The following scales were translated in Urdu.

1. Inventory of Complicated Grief

Translation of Inventory of Complicated Grief, Grief Experience Questionnaire: Stigma

Forward Translation. Translation of Inventory of Complicated Grief, Grief Experience

Item-Total Correlation of Inventory of Complicated Grief (N=120)

Item no. R Item no. R

Table 1 demonstrates a significant positive association between each

Item-Total Correlation of Grief Experience Questionnaire-Stigma Subscale (N=120)

Table 2 demonstrates a significant positive association between each

Item-Total Correlation of Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (N=120)

2.Stigma - .02 -.11* .20 .45 .17 .23 .19** .11*

5.PBR - .43 -.24 .16 .42 .42**

6.RT - .09 .35 .48 .40**