Content uploaded by Amanda Holman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Amanda Holman on Jan 08, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Papers in Communication Studies Communication Studies, Department of
2015
Giving Voice to the Silence of Family
Estrangement: Comparing Reasons of Estranged
Parents and Adult Children in a Non-matched
Sample
Kristen Carr
Texas Christian University
Amanda Holman
Creighton University
Jenna Abetz
College of Charleston
Jody Koenig Kellas
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, jkellas2@unl.edu
Elizabeth Vagnoni
Estranged Stories
Follow this and additional works at: h=p://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstudiespapers
Part of the Critical and Cultural Studies Commons,Gender, Race, Sexuality, and Ethnicity in
Communication Commons, and the Other Communication Commons
<is Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Communication Studies, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska -
Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers in Communication Studies by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of
Nebraska - Lincoln.
Carr, Kristen; Holman, Amanda; Abetz, Jenna; Koenig Kellas, Jody; and Vagnoni, Elizabeth, "Giving Voice to the Silence of Family
Estrangement: Comparing Reasons of Estranged Parents and Adult Children in a Non-matched Sample" (2015). Papers in
Communication Studies. 66.
h=p://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstudiespapers/66
1
digitalcommons.unl.edu
Published in Journal of Family Communication, 15: 2015
DOI: 10.1080/15267431.2015.1013106
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC .
Used by permission.
Giving Voice to the Silence of Family Estrangement:
Comparing Reasons of Estranged Parents and Adult
Children in a Non-matched Sample
Kristen Carr1, Amanda Holman2, Jenna Abetz3, Jody Koenig Kellas4 & Elizabeth Vagnoni5
1. Department of Communication Studies, Texas Christian University
2. Department of Communication Studies, Creighton University
3. Department of Communication, College of Charleston
4. Department of Communication Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
5. Estranged Stories
Abstract
This study investigated 898 parents’ and adult children’s reasons for estrangement in light of re-
search on interpersonal attributions and the relational consequences of perspective taking. Three
primary categories emerged: estrangement resulted from intrafamily, interfamily, or intrapersonal
issues. Within each category, the frequency of parents’ and children’s reasons for estrangement
differed signicantly from each other. Parents reported that their primary reason for becoming es-
tranged stemmed from their children’s objectionable relationships or sense of entitlement, whereas
adult children most frequently attributed their estrangement to their parents’ toxic behavior or feel-
ing unsupported and unaccepted. Parents also reported that they were unsure of the reason for their
estrangement signicantly more often than did children. Examining estrangement from the perspec-
tive of both parents and adult children offers potential avenues for family reconciliation and future
communication research.
Traditionally, family scholars study parent-child relationships as though they are enduring and per-
manent; thus, it is not surprising that research exploring why these relationships dissolve is rela-
tively scarce. Perhaps because of these normative assumptions about the permanence of parent-child
relationships, the effects of family estrangement can be devastating to those who experience it.
Parent-child estrangement, or the decision to discontinue communication by either parent or child,
occurs when the parent-child bond has been signicantly damaged (Friedlander & Walters, 2010),
yet the reasons for discontinuing this relationship vary widely.
Reasons for estrangement from extant research include traumatic experiences of family violence,
abuse, neglect, (Drozd & Olesen, 2004; Friedlander & Walters, 2010), and parental misbehavior
such as repetitive explosive outbursts or intense marital conict (Kelly & Johnston, 2001), espe-
cially after divorce (Campbell, 2005). The majority of researchers investigating the reasons for
parent-child estrangement, however, seek out individuals estranged as a result of a specic circum-
stance. In other words, existing knowledge of parent-child estrangement reects researchers’ a priori
decisions about its possible causes. Asking participants to select the most salient contributing fac-
tors surrounding their own experiences (e.g., divorce, abuse) provides an important foundation for
parent-child estrangement. However, we know of no study, to date, that allowed estranged parents
and children to provide open-ended explanations for why they are estranged. Therefore, the initial
2 Carr et. al. Journal of family CommuniCations 2015
purpose of this study is to examine the reasons given by both parents and adult children for family
estrangement.
Because parents and children are unlikely to discuss their estrangement with each other—and are
therefore unlikely to understand each other’s reasoning—an additional goal of this study is to un-
derstand how parents and adult children uniquely make sense of the circumstances surrounding their
estrangement. The ability to understand, attend to, and conrm others’ perspectives is positively
associated with family satisfaction, cohesion, adaptability, and perceptions of family support (Koe-
nig Kellas, 2005; Trees & Koenig Kellas, 2009). Thus, the opportunity to understand one another’s
point of view may be an important rst step for researchers and practitioners in helping families
cope with their estrangement.
Making Sense of Estrangement
Because of the social expectation of permanence for parent-child relationships, the dissolution of
parent-child bonds requires a valid reason to avoid negative sanctions (McCall, 1982). Yet, the ab-
sence of verbal communication between estranged parents and children suggests that estrangement
may be best understood through internal sense-making processes such as attribution and perspective
taking. Because individuals operate as “naïve scientists” to understand the cognitive and communi-
cative processes in explaining others’ behavior (Manusov & Spitzberg, 2008), examining how these
attributions for estrangement vary may provide important insight to families who have become
estranged.
Attribution theory focuses on the degree to which individuals’ causal loci for behavior is internal
or external (Heider, 1958). Internal causes are those that are associated with the disposition and
characteristics of an individual, whereas externally located causes attribute behavior to some envi-
ronmental factor, such as an illness or injury. Individuals who believe that their relational partners’
positive behavior is intentional and voluntary, and that their negative behavior is unintentional and
involuntary are making relationship-enhancing attributions, which are associated with increased
relational satisfaction and adjustment (Holtzworth-Munroe & Jacobson, 1985; Manusov, 1990).
Conversely, people who assign internal causes to negative behavior and external causes to positive
behavior make distress-maintaining attributions, which often result in anger, conict (Canary &
Spitzberg, 1990) and perhaps, estrangement.
Thus, it seems likely that parents’ and adult children’s reasons for their estrangement offer insight
into their unique sense-making processes. When faced with problematic behavior, people cogni-
tively and discursively construct reasons for self- and other-behavior, and these cognitive and com-
municative constructions have relational consequences. In the context of parent-child estrangement,
understanding the reasons parents and adult children provide lends insight into this understudied but
consequential family phenomenon. Thus, we asked:
RQ1: What reasons do parents and adult children provide for their estrangement?
In addition to examining parents and children’s explanations for their estrangement, it may also
be useful to examine how, if at all, parents’ reasons vary from adult children’s reasons. Because
differing perspectives may be at the heart of the conict and misunderstanding that characterizes
estrangement, it seems likely that parents and adult children provide different accounts for their
estrangement as well. Thus, understanding how parents and children’s perspectives diverge is an
important step in providing practical suggestions for families coping with estrangement.
The ability to take another’s perspective and communicate that understanding to others has been
identied as a signicant predictor of family satisfaction, adaptability, and family functioning (Koe-
GivinG voiCe to the silenCe of family estranGement 3
nig Kellas, 2005; Trees & Koenig Kellas, 2009) and is predictive of empathic concern (Takada &
Levine, 2007). Given the positive links between perspective taking and relationship functioning
(Long & Andrews, 1990), estranged relationships are likely characterized by differences in, or lack
of, perspective taking. Examining how parents’ and children’s attributions for estrangement differ
offers a window into how they make sense of their relational difculties and may provide an im-
portant rst step in helping estranged parents and children to understand each other’s perspectives.
To gain an understanding of how parents’ and children’s perspectives differ as evidenced by their
attributions for estrangement, we also asked:
RQ2: How do parents’ and adult children’s reasons for estrangement vary?
Method
Participants
Data for this study were collected as part of a larger research project on parent-child estrangement
initiated by the fth author as the creator and moderator of a website providing social support for
estranged parents and adult children. Participants consisted of a nonmatched sample of 546 par-
ents and 352 adult children (N = 898) who were recruited from various websites associated with
estrangement. The online survey asked participants to provide basic demographic information, the
details surrounding the estrangement, and to respond to the open-ended prompt of “From your point
of view, please briey describe what you believe to be the reason for the estrangement.”
In the parent sample, nearly 93% (n = 507) were female, and the majority was Caucasian (95%, n =
520). Although the majority of parents resided in the United States (86%, n = 470), responses were
recorded from 11 other countries (11.9%, n = 65). The mean age of the parents was 56 years (SD =
7.64) and they had been estranged from their children for about ve years (M = 5.35, SD = 5.60).
Adult children participants were also predominantly female (82%, n = 290), Caucasian (87%, n =
308), and resided in the United States (77%, n = 273). The mean age of estranged adult children was
nearly 40 years old (M = 39.76, SD = 10.36) and they reported being estranged from their parent(s)
for approximately nine years (M = 8.59, SD = 8.75), beginning at age 31.
Data Analysis
To identify parents and children’s reasons for their estrangement, the open-ended data were coded
in a series of steps. Consistent with Vangelisti, Crumley, and Baker’s (1999) coding procedures,
all responses were examined and initial thematic categories were derived using analytic induction
(Bulmer, 1979). An additional twenty percent of the data were reviewed based on this preliminary
list of categories, allowing thematic categories to be redened, collapsed, or expanded as necessary,
resulting in a nal list of 14 reasons for parent-child estrangement. Early in the coding process,
we were open to the possibility that the list of reasons would differ between parent and adult-child
samples. However, we discovered that the reasons provided were similar enough to be categorized
under one coding scheme encompassing both parents and children.
Each response was rst read in its entirety to obtain a global sense of its theme. If a single theme
emerged as the reason for estrangement (e.g., physical abuse, divorce), the corresponding code was
assigned. If the reason for estrangement spanned more than one theme (i.e., several themes were
listed in one response), the theme that was the most developed in length or description was selected
as the primary theme. After all data were coded, twenty percent were checked for consistency across
coders. In this sample, Cohen’s Kappa indicated acceptable reliability among coders (κ = .80, 83%);
all disagreements were resolved through discussion and one nal code was assigned.
4 Carr et. al. Journal of family CommuniCations 2015
GivinG voiCe to the silenCe of family estranGement 5
6 Carr et. al. Journal of family CommuniCations 2015
GivinG voiCe to the silenCe of family estranGement 7
Results
The research questions guiding this study sought to rst examine parents’ and adult children’s rea-
sons for estrangement (RQ1) and then to identify how parents and children vary in their explana-
tion of the circumstances surrounding estrangement (RQ2). The results of RQ1 demonstrated that
across both parent and child groups, three overarching categories emerged, indicating that estrange-
ment resulted from intrafamily, interfamily, or intrapersonal issues. Intrafamily issues suggested
that estrangement resulted from negative behavior occurring between estranged family members.
Interfamily reasons indicated that estrangement resulted from situations or issues existing outside of
the estranged family relationship. Intrapersonal reasons suggested that estrangement resulted from a
personality characteristic of oneself or a family member. Within these three overarching categories,
reasons for estrangement were categorized into 14 themes. A fourth category was created to include
themes of unsure/don’t know and uncodable. Denitions of each category, theme, and examples
from both parents and children are available in Table 1.
To answer RQ2 and understand how parents and children varied in their reasons for estrange-
ment, a cross-tabs contingency analysis revealed signicant differences in the frequency with which
parents and children discussed their estrangement as the result of intrafamily interfamily, or intraper-
sonal issues. Follow up pairwise comparisons were then conducted to assess the specic differences
among these groups, indicating that, when compared to children, parents’ reasons for estrangement
tended to result from more interfamily χ2(1) = 56.12, p < .001 and intrafamily reasons, χ2(1) = 5.37,
p < .05, whereas children reported signicantly more intrapersonal attributions χ2(1) = 44.38, p <
.001 than did parents. To further assess these variations between parents and children’s reasons for
estrangement, we then conducted a series of pairwise comparisons to determine if the frequency of
each theme differed between parents and children. Rather than reporting results from all 14 pairwise
comparisons textually, we use asterisks in Table 1 to indicate additional statistically signicant (p <
.05) differences between parents and children in categories and themes.
Discussion
This study examined reasons provided by parents and adult children for their estrangement and
identied how these reasons differed between estranged children and parents. Previous research
on estrangement has focused on predetermined situational occurrences such as divorce (Campbell,
2005), alcoholism, abuse (Drozd & Olesen, 2004; Friedlander & Walters, 2010), or other forms of
parental misbehavior such as intense, negative outbursts and repetitive conict (Kelly & Johnston,
2001). Although these events contributed to estrangement, few parents and adult children reported
these as their primary reasons for the dissolution of the parent-child relationships in this large-scale
study. For the children in our study, the main reasons for estrangement stemmed from their percep-
tion of their parents’ toxic behavior, or feeling unsupported and/or unaccepted. Parents, in contrast,
most frequently attributed estrangement to their children’s objectionable relationships outside the
family.
Overall, analyses indicated that parents cited signicantly more intra-and interfamily reasons
for their estrangement than did children, suggesting that situational or family stressors played a
more prominent role for parents than did their estranged child’s character or personality. For many
parents, estrangement was the result of external circumstances; if absent, estrangement would likely
have not occurred. In contrast, children cited signicantly more intrapersonal reasons for their es-
trangement, signifying that children viewed their reason for estrangement as a consequence of the
characteristics of their parents; an unfortunate but inevitable ending, barring signicant personality
changes. These differences are demonstrated by the variations between parents’ and children’s ex-
perience of each category and theme discussed below.
8 Carr et. al. Journal of family CommuniCations 2015
Within the intrafamily category, parents often discussed estrangement as related to their own
divorce or their child’s entitled behavior more frequently than did children. These differences have
several interesting implications. First, existing research on parent-child estrangement has focused
primarily on divorce as the impetus for estrangement, but just 13.2% of parents and 2.3% of children
reported this as their primary reason for becoming estranged. The signicant difference in parents’
and children’s experiences may reect their respective attributional biases, in that parents tended to
blame estrangement on sources outside of themselves, and children tended to attribute estrangement
to the personal characteristics of their parents. Additionally, parents report entitlement as the reason
for estrangement more frequently than do children. It is interesting to note that even when children
did report entitlement as the reason for being estranged, they generally cited this as their perception
of their parents’ perspective, rather than as self-reection or an admission of misbehavior.
Of those parents and children providing interfamily reasons, signicantly more parents attributed
their estrangement to their children’s objectionable relationships. Although parents discussed their
children’s destructive or hurtful behavior in this category, the reason for the change in their person-
ality was generally attributed to the inuence of the objectionable person. Children, however, often
indicated that their parents’ inability to accept their dating partner or spouse resulted from their
parents’ narrow-minded personality. Additionally, children discussed their parents’ self-centered be-
havior as a relatively stable characteristic that allowed little opportunity for change. Interestingly,
relatively few parents recognized their own role in their children’s self-centered behavior, suggest-
ing that they may have been excessively supportive or overly accommodating to their children. Pa-
rental self-reection was not as prevalent, however, when parents reported the reason for estrange-
ment as unloved and/or unsupported. Overwhelmingly, parents discussed their children’s perception
of being unloved, but were uncertain of their own role in creating these feelings. Children, on the
other hand, were explicit about the reasons for feeling unloved, and often attributed these causes to
stable and internal characteristics of their parents.
Collectively, the differences outlined here suggest that parents tended to discuss estrangement as
the result of external factors (e.g., objectionable relationships), whereas children cited their parents’
internal personal characteristics (e.g., toxicity). However, the data suggest that both parents and
children are more likely to explain estrangement in terms of the parents’ behavior, perhaps reecting
a social expectation that parents are primarily responsible for maintaining the parent-child relation-
ship.
Contribution to the Literature
These variations in experiences of estrangement contribute to the existing body of research in sev-
eral ways. First, nearly all of the existing research on parent-child estrangement has assumed that
estrangement occurs during adolescence (Friedlander & Walters, 2010; Kim, 2006), whereas the
average age of estrangement for this sample was 31 years old. Although much of the research on
parent-child estrangement has grown out of the literature on parental alienation and divorce, this
constituted only 15.5% of the total sample’s attributions for estrangement. Family events such as
divorce played a role in many of the participants’ reasons for becoming estranged, but, like parent-
adolescent conict, was frequently one piece of a larger relational puzzle.
One of the most predominant variations in parents and children’s reasons for their estrangement
in the current sample is well supported by attribution theory. Specically, these results suggest
that when explaining estrangement, parents tended to make more external attributions about the
estrangement (e.g., divorce), whereas children made attributions that were internal to the parent.
Overall, however, the data suggest that both parents and children are more likely to explain es-
trangement in terms of the parents’ behavior. If parents are socially expected to take more responsi-
bility for estrangement from their children, it is not surprising that they would make more external,
GivinG voiCe to the silenCe of family estranGement 9
uncontrollable attributions for their own actions. Research on the fundamental attribution error,
which suggests that people are more likely to attribute internal causes to others’ negative behavior
(Ross, 1977), may help to explain children’s attributions. Specically, children in this study tended
to attribute estrangement to the negative, internal, stable characteristics of their parents (i.e., self-
centeredness, toxicity). However, as illustrated by the fundamental attribution error, the causes of a
person’s behavior are rarely this simple or straightforward, and thus children’s assessment of their
parents’ behavior may be incomplete or inaccurate.
In addition to the variation in the nature of their attributions, parents were not as condent in
the verity of their attributions for estrangement as were children, and their accounts were less de-
veloped. Parents often speculated or listed multiple “options” as reasons for estrangement, whereas
children were much more convinced as to the reason they were estranged from their parents. This
has signicant implications when viewed through the lens of perspective-taking as the ability to take
the perspective of others, especially during times of difculty or stress, has very real consequences
for family relationships (e.g., Koenig Kellas, 2005). At the same time, children were even less likely
to incorporate their parents’ perspectives about estrangement than were the parent sample. Teaching
parents and children how to communicate in a way that supports each other’s perspective during
times of family crisis may result in more generous attributions for each other’s behavior.
The silence that inherently characterizes estrangement makes this a particularly difcult issue
for families to address. Many parents’ reasons for their estrangement were fraught with confusion,
bewilderment, and pain as they attempted to grapple with their estrangement from their child. Re-
building a broken relationship requires the effort of both the parent and estranged child, but mis-
understanding one another’s reasons for estrangement is likely to make any effort at reconciliation
difcult. Thus, although familial experiences with estrangement are likely unique, there is consider-
able benet for both estranged parents and children to understand each others’ perspectives, even
in a general sense.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
There are several limitations to this study that should be considered. First, recruiting participants
through an online support community may lead to different perspectives than recruiting from the
general population because these participants may have spent more time disentangling their own
reasons for estrangement already. Additionally, because the majority of parents in this study were
female, it may be salient to examine estrangement more closely from fathers’ perspectives. Finally,
because there are limitations to cross-sectional data, future research should study estrangement lon-
gitudinally, as estrangement commonly unfolds over time.
Given the signicant distress experienced by estranged parents and children (Baker, 2005; Kim,
2006), our primary focus is on generating conclusions with practical value. Understanding how
parents and children uniquely make sense of the circumstances surrounding their estrangement has
signicant utility for researchers, practitioners, and family members alike. With a richer knowledge
of why the parent-child bond becomes severed, researchers might explore the long-term impact of
parent-child estrangement over time. Given that toxicity is the primary reason children report for
estranging themselves from their parents, practitioners might consider ways to help parents under-
stand how their children see their communicative patterns as hurtful or toxic, which may serve as a
mechanism for better understanding their children’s perspective.
Likewise, it may be benecial for adult children to reevaluate their previously-held attributions
of parental toxicity, especially when a signicant amount of time has elapsed since the estrange-
ment. By denition, estrangement involves the absence of verbal communication between parents
and children. Offering a synthesis of large-sample reasons for estrangement from the perspective
10 Carr et. al. Journal of family CommuniCations 2015
of both parents and children offers a communicative link for either of the estranged individuals to
be self-reective. Based on the difculty both parents and adult children experienced in under-
standing each others’ reasons for estrangement, it seems that developing the skills associated with
communicated perspective-taking may be particularly salient as a preventative and reconciliatory
mechanism in parent-child relationships.
References
Baker, A. J. (2005). The long-term effects of parental alienation on adult children: A qualitative research
study. American Journal of Family Therapy, 33, 289–302. doi:10.1080/01926180590962129
Bulmer, M. (1979). Concepts in the analysis of qualitative data. Sociological Review, 27, 651–677.
doi:10.1111/ j.1467-954X.1979.tb00354.x
Campbell, T. W. (2005). Why doesn’t parental alienation occur more frequently? The sig-
nicance of role discrimination. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 33, 365–377.
doi:10.1080/01926180500274567
Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1990). Attribution biases and associations between con-
ict strategies and competence outcomes. Communication Monographs, 57, 139–151.
doi:10.1080/0363775900937619
Drozd, L. M., & Olesen, N. W. (2004). Is it abuse, alienation, and/or estrangement? A decision tree.
Journal of Child Custody, 1, 65–106. doi:10.1300/J190v01n03_05
Friedlander, A., & Walters, M. G. (2010). When a child rejects a parent: Tailoring the intervention to
t the problem. Family Court Review, 48, 98–111. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01291.x
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
doi:10.1037/10628-000
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Jacobson, N. S. (1985). Causal attributions of married couples: When do
they search for causes? What do they conclude when they do? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48, 1398–1412. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1398
Kelly, J. B., & Johnston, J. R. (2001). The alienated child: A reformulation of parental alienation
syndrome. Family Court Review, 39, 249–266. doi:10.1111/j.174-1617.2001.tb00609.x
Kim, K. J. (2006). Parent-adolescent conict, negative emotion, and estrangement from the family
origin. Research in Human Development, 3, 45–58. doi:10.1207/s15427617rhd0301_5
Koenig Kellas, J. (2005). Family ties: Communicating identity through jointly told family stories.
Communication Monographs, 72, 365–389. doi:10.1080/03637750500322453
Long, E. C. J., & Andrews, D. W. (1990). Perspective-taking as a predictor of marital adjustment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 126–131. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.126
Manusov, V. (1990). An application of attribution principles to nonverbal behavior in romantic dy-
ads. Communication Monographs, 57, 104–118. doi:10.1080/03637759009376189
Manusov, V., & Spitzberg, B. (2008). Attribution theory: Finding good cause in the search for theory.
In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication:
Multiple perspectives (pp. 37–49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483329529.n3
McCall, G. J. (1982). Becoming unrelated: The management of bond dissolution. In S. Duck (Ed.),
Personal relationships 4: Dissolving personal relationships (pp. 211–231). New York, NY: Aca-
demic Press.
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution pro-
cess. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 10–21). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Takada, J., & Levine, T. (2007). The effects of the even-a-few-minutes-would-help strategy, per-
spective taking, and empathic concern on the successful recruiting of volunteers on campus.
GivinG voiCe to the silenCe of family estranGement 11
Communication Research Reports, 24, 177–184. doi:10.1080/08824090701439026.
Trees, A. R., & Koenig Kellas, J. (2009). Telling tales: Enacting family relationships in joint sto-
rytelling about difcult family experiences. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 91–111.
doi:10.1080/10570310802635021.
Vangelisti, A. L., Crumley, L. P., & Baker, J. L. (1999). Family portraits: Stories as stan-
dards for family relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 335–368.
doi:10.1177/0265407599163004.
