DIVORCE IS in the news again–and not just because of Michael Jordan’s marital woes. In the past two weeks, both USA Today and the Washington Post have run fawning profiles of E. Mavis Hetherington, one of the nation’s leading divorce researchers. Hetherington, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, has just published a new book-length study, “For Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered,” which presents the results of her three decades of research on the effects of divorce.
Both articles portray Hetherington as a counterbalance to the more pessimistic Judith S. Wallerstein, a retired lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley. According to Wallerstein–whose 2000 book, “The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce,” incited the last flurry of press coverage on the topic–divorce may be beneficial for the adults involved, but it has long-term consequences for children as they become adults, putting them at greater risk for substance abuse, emotional problems, having children out of wedlock, and seeing their own marriages end in divorce. Wallerstein’s work helped end the old consensus that divorce was no big deal for the kids involved, and has provided much ammunition for cultural conservatives seeking to strengthen marriage and reduce the divorce rate (which, coincidentally, dropped slightly in the 1990s from a high of over 50 percent to about 43 percent currently).
But Hetherington believes researchers like Wallerstein have overstated their case: She writes that “much current writing on divorce–popular and academic–has exaggerated its negative effects and ignored its sometimes considerable positive effects.” Hetherington goes to great lengths to reassure her interviewers that “the last thing I want to do is sound like I am recommending divorce,” noting that she has been happily married for 46 years. “I am not pro-divorce,” she told USA Today. “I think people should work harder on their marriages and be better prepared when they go in and more willing to weather out the rough spots and support each other.” But her relentlessly positive interpretations of her findings tend to undercut these assertions. Hetherington writes, for example, that while ending a marriage can be “challenging and painful,” it is “also a window of opportunity to build a new and better life.” And every number is seen in the most optimistic light: Her study found that 25 percent of children from divorced families have serious social, psychological, or emotional problems, to which she responds, “That is significant risk, but it still means 75 to 80 percent are doing all right or very well.”
As both articles note, there’s still plenty of disturbing stuff to be found in Hetherington’s study. For instance, though the “vast majority” of children “are beginning to function reasonably well again” just two years after their parents’ divorce, it takes up to six years for most family members to recover emotionally and mentally. The percentage of adult children of divorce with serious psychological problems is double that of adult children from intact families. Perhaps most alarming is the difference in attitudes toward divorce among young adults from divorced families when compared to those from intact families: Seventy percent of those from divorced families see divorce as an acceptable solution to a troubled marriage, even if children are present; marriage is forever only “if things work out.” Only 40 percent of those from intact families agree. These numbers do not bode well for efforts to significantly lower the divorce rate over the long term.
Hetherington’s positive findings should not surprise us, if only because they confirm a deep truth: Human beings are extraordinarily resilient and adaptive creatures. But that doesn’t make divorce any less regrettable or tragic–even those divorces where everyone involved eventually ends up pretty happy with their new lives. And it certainly doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do everything in our power as a culture–from tightening up divorce laws, to restoring the social preference for making even difficult marriages work instead of opting for divorce–to make such tragedies less common. During the past decade or so, we’ve made small but significant progress on that front. To the extent that Hetherington’s findings–and the rather easy-come, easy-go spin she puts on them–give new life to the notion that divorce isn’t all that bad, but just another option for personal fulfillment, it’s unfortunate.
Lee Bockhorn is associate editor at The Weekly Standard.
