Reconciling Divergent Perspectives: Judith Wallerstein, Quantitative Family Research, and Children of Divorce

• Published date: 01 October 2003
• Author: Paul R. Amato
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00332.x
• Date: 01 October 2003

332 Family Relations

Special Collection

Reconciling Divergent Perspectives: Judith Wallerstein,

Quantitative Family Research, and Children of Divorce

Paul R. Amato*

Although Judith Wallerstein’s research on children with divorced parents has been inf‌luential, many quantitative family scholars have

criticized her methods and conclusions. Wallerstein claims that children with divorced parents often reach adulthood as psychologically

troubled individuals who f‌ind it diff‌icult to maintain stable and satisfying relationships with others. Consistent with Wallerstein’s claims,

quantitative research suggests that parental divorce increases the risk of experiencing psychological problems, having a discordant

marriage, seeing one’s own marriage end in divorce, and having weak ties to parents (especially fathers) in adulthood. The accumulated

evidence, however, reveals that the estimated effects of divorce are not as strong as Wallerstein appears to claim. I provide examples

from the Marital Instability Over the Life Course study to illustrate the magnitude of divorce effects. I conclude with a call for a

rapprochement between Wallerstein and her critics.

Judith Wallerstein’s research on the long-term effects of di-

vorce on children has had a profound impact on scholarly

work, clinical practice, social policy, and the general pub-

lic’s views of divorce. The news coverage of her recent book,

The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study

(Wallerstein, Lewis, & Blakeslee, 2000), was remarkable, with

major stories appearing in Newsweek, Time, U.S. News and

World Report, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and

most other major newspapers in the United States. The massive

interest in Wallerstein’s work ref‌lects the concerns of people in

a society where nearly 50% of all f‌irst marriages continue to end

in divorce (Bramlett & Mosher, 2001). With the publishing of

her 25-year follow-up study, the time seems right to consider

her overall contributions to our f‌ield.

A focus on Wallerstein’s work also is appropriate given the

recent publication of Mavis Hetherington’s book, For Better of

For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002).

Hetherington argues that the negative effects of marital disrup-

tion on children have been exaggerated and that most children

recover without long-term harm. Her data indicate that 25% of

children with divorced parents reach adulthood with a serious

social, emotional, or psychological problem, compared with 10%

of children with continuously married parents. Therefore, al-

though parental divorce is a risk factor for subsequent problems,

the majority of youth (75%) reach adulthood as well-functioning

individuals. This upbeat conclusion appears to clash with the

more somber views of Wallerstein. Not surprisingly, the media

have framed the issue as a debate between Hetherington and

Wallerstein. As an article in Newsweek magazine stated, ‘‘Heth-

erington’s main rival in the divorce-book genre is California re-

searcher Judith Wallerstein, whose best-selling studies of chil-

dren and divorce have highlighted her disturbing f‌indings about

the diff‌iculties these children have in establishing healthy adult

relationships’’ (Kontrowitz, 2002, p. 60).

My goal in this paper is to review the strengths and limi-

tations of Wallerstein’s research methodology and to examine her

main conclusions in the light of the accumulated research of

other family scholars. I argue that many of Wallerstein’s conclu-

sions about the long-term consequences of marital dissolution on

*Department of Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802

(pxa6@psu.edu).

Key Words: children, divorce, marital discord, methodology, parent-child relation-

ships, psychological well-being.

(Family Relations, 2003, 52, 332–339)

children are more pessimistic than the evidence warrants. How-

ever, I also argue that a careful reading of Wallerstein’s work

reveals many consistencies between her views and the views of

other investigators. Most family scholars agree that divorce has

negative long-term consequences for many children. The major

disagreement between Wallerstein and other social scientists in-

volves a fundamental question: How large and pervasive are the

negative effects of divorce on children?

Wallerstein’s Methodology

Wallerstein recruited her original sample of 60 families and

131 children (ages 3–18) in 1971. Parents had f‌iled for divorce

in Marin County, California—a middle- to upper-class suburb—

and were referred to Wallerstein’s project by family law attor-

neys. Parents were predominantly White and well educated.

Wallerstein stressed that to be included in the study, childrenhad

to be developmentally ‘‘on track’’ and could not have been treat-

ed previously for an emotional problem. These families were

followed up at 18 months, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, and 25

years. At the 25-year follow up, 45 (75%) of the original families

participated, and interviews were conducted with 93 (71%) of

the original 131 children. The attrition rate from this study was

low by most standards (Karney & Bradbury, 1995).

In the original study, researchers used semistructured inter-

view schedules to collect information from both parents and

from all of the children in participating families. Although the

investigators developed codes for people’s responses and stored

the data as computerized f‌iles, quantitative analyses have never

featured prominently in Wallerstein’s reports. Instead, Waller-

stein has relied primarily on case studies to illustrate recurring

themes. This detailed, qualitative methodology is well-suited to

capturing the richness and complexity of each person’s experi-

ence. As Wallerstein states, ‘‘From the beginning, my interest

has been in the inner world of these people as they matured. I’ve

tried to see the world through their eyes’’ (Wallerstein et al.,

2001, p. xxvi).

Family scholars have criticized Wallerstein’s methodology

on several grounds (e.g., Cherlin, 1999). One criticism refers to

her method of sampling. Because her sample was not selected

randomly, her results cannot be generalized to any clearly de-

f‌ined target population. Moreover, because the researchers of-

fered counseling in exchange for participation, the sample may

have overrepresented parents who were adjusting poorly to sep-

aration. In fact, Wallerstein noted in the appendix of her f‌irst

book-length report (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980) that a substantial