Parental Denigration Boomerangs Versus Alienates: Parent–Child Closeness, Reciprocity, and Well‐Being Using Multiple Informants

• Date: 01 February 2019
• Author: Jenna Rowen,Robert E. Emery
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12324
• Published date: 01 February 2019

J R University of Illinois at Chicago

R E. E University of Virginia

Parental Denigration Boomerangs Versus Alienates:

Parent–Child Closeness, Reciprocity,

and Well-Being Using Multiple Informants

Objective: To assess parental denigration, par-

ents demeaning each other to or in front of their

children, and whether denigration is one-sided

or reciprocal, related to distance or closeness

between parents and children, and associated

with measures of children’s well-being.

Background: The parental alienation hypoth-

esis argues that denigration is one-sided and

distances children from the denigrated parent.

Parentalconict research suggests that denigra-

tion is reciprocal and distances children from

both parents, particularly the more frequently

denigrating parent.

Method: Convenience samples totaling 994

young adults and including 157 sibling pairs

completed a structured measure of denigration

as well as several measures of parent–child

relationship quality and individual well-being.

Results: Parental denigration was measured

reliably over time and between siblings. Deni-

gration was highly reciprocal, linkedto children

feeling less close to both parents—particularly

the one denigrating more often—and associated

with a variety of measures of ill-being. Results

held both within and between siblings and in the

1% of cases of unilateral denigration.

Department of Psychology,University of Illinois at Chicago,

1007 West Harrison Street, 3010 BSB, Chicago, IL 60607

(jrowen@uic.edu).

Key Words: parental alienation, parental denigration, inter-

parental conict, parentaldenigration scale, divorce.

Conclusion: Normatively, denigration appears

to boomerang not alienate. Childrenconsistently

report feeling less close to parentswho denigrate

more than to parents who are the target of deni-

gration.

Implications: Parents, and the professionals

who work with them, must recognize the dam-

age denigration does to denigrating parents’

own relationship with their children. Findings

also raise questions about alienation claims,

which appear to be rare exceptions to the

boomerang rule.

Parental denigration occurs when one parent

directly disparages or speaks negatively about

the other parent to or in front of their chil-

dren (Rowen & Emery, 2014). One reason for

studying parental denigration is its relevance to

the clinical construct parental alienation, the

assertion that one parent’s denigration of the

other undermines the denigrated parent’s rela-

tionship with his or her children (Darnall, 1998).

A second reason for studying parental denigra-

tion is the extensive research and theory about

how parental conict affects children, juxta-

posed with a dearth of research on denigra-

tion as a particular form of conict. As detailed

here, the alienation and conict perspectives

offer opposing predictions about the reciprocity

and consequences of denigration. The overrid-

ing goal of the present study is to test these

Family Relations 68 (February 2019): 119–134 119

DOI:10.1111/fare.12324

120 Family Relations

contrasting hypotheses using multiple samples,

informants, and measures.

The parental alienation hypothesis—that one

parent’s denigration of the other undermines

the denigrated parent’s relationship with his

or her children—has had substantial inuence

in the courtroom. For example, Richard Gard-

ner (2001), the originator of what he termed

parental alienation syndrome, stated that his

expert witness testimony led to a change of

custody or restricted parental access in 22 of 99

cases. More generally, a survey of 448 custody

experts indicated that alienation claims were

raised in 26% of cases and that a “campaign

of denigration” was the second most important

factor (after “brainwashing parent”) in assessing

alienation (Bow,Gould, & Flens, 2009). Despite

its courtroom impact, research on parental alien-

ation has been widely deemed inadequate in

both quantity and quality (Bruch, 2002; Dallam,

1999; Emery, 2005; Fidler & Bala, 2010; Hoult,

2006; Johnston, 2005; Saini, Johnston, Fidler,

& Bala, 2016). In fact, a recent review rated no

studies of alienation as being of high quality;

the majority (82%) were rated low or very low

quality (Saini, Johnston, Fidler, & Bala, 2013).

Dramatic increases in divorce in the 1970s

fueled interest in studying the effects of parental

conict on children. Early research often

was framed as asking whether children fared

better in a happy single-parent family than

a conict-ridden, intact one (Emery, 1982).

Extensive subsequent research has shown that

interparental conict is a robust predictor of

children’s psychological functioning. This

nding has been established using a variety

of methods, including eld studies (Amato &

Keith, 1991; Emery,1982), genetically informed

designs (Harden et al., 2007), and laboratory

analog experiments (Cummings & Davies,

2011). Moreover, researchers have identied

dimensions of conict that are more or less

harmful to children. For example, Cummings

and Davies (2011) found that child-focused,

angry, and verbally or physically aggressive

conict is particularly harmful. However,family

systems (Emery, Fincham, & Cummings, 1992)

and emotional security (Cummings & Davies,

2011) theory, clinical observations (Emery,

2011; Maldonado, 2014), and research on

children caught in the middle (Buchanan, Mac-

coby, & Dornbusch, 1991; Buehler et al., 1997;

Vuchinich, Emery, & Cassidy, 1988) all suggest

that children do not have to directly observe

parental disputes to be harmed by them. Deni-

gration may be one form of harmful conict in

which children do not directly observe a dispute.

Importantly, and as noted, the alienation and

conict literatures lead to different predictions

about the nature and potential consequences

of parental denigration. Although authors of a

reformulation of the parental alienation hypoth-

esis argue that “alienated” parents contribute in

important ways to their children’s rejection of

them (Kelly & Johnston, 2001), parental alien-

ation has been widely viewed as one-sided in

its original and in many contemporary descrip-

tions. The rejected parent is asserted to be a lov-

ing caregiver who has done nothing wrong but

whose children have been brainwashed against

him or her by the denigration of the other parent

(Darnall, 1998; Gardner, 2002). In contrast, con-

ict is two-sided by denition. According to the

conict perspective, denigration should ber ecip-

rocal rather than one-sided.

Another key difference between the alien-

ation and parental conict literatures concerns

the effects of denigration on parent–child rela-

tionships. The term parental alienation implies

that denigration distances children from the par-

ent who is denigrated, perhaps while bringing

the child in a closer alliance with the parent who

does the denigrating. In contrast, research on

interparental conict has found that increased

conict is associated with children becoming

less close to both parents (e.g., Davies et al.,

2016), which is perhaps not surprising given

that both parents reciprocally engage in conict.

In an earlier study of 648 undergraduate stu-

dents (Rowen & Emery, 2014), we found that

young adult reports of mothers’ and fathers’ den-

igration behaviors were highly correlated (i.e.,

reciprocal). More frequent denigration also was

associated with feeling less close to both par-

ents. In fact, young people reported feeling more

distant from the parent who did more deni-

grating than from the parent who was the tar-

get of denigration. Furthermore, inspection of

individual cases revealed only nine instances

of one-sided denigration, and those informants

reported feeling substantially closer to the deni-

grating than the denigrated parent in only one of

those nine cases of one-sided instances of deni-

gration. Even in this case, there was no evidence

of parental rejection; the participation reported

feeling close and connected to the parents who

was the target of denigration.