How Common Is Parental Alienation? Johnston (2003) and the '80%' Myth
A plain-language summary of the authors' 2003 research in Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 31(2), 158–170 — Parental Alignments and Rejection: An Empirical Study of Alienation in Children of Divorce.
Summarised by Malcolm Smith on behalf of Love Over Exile. Last updated 9 June 2026 .
TL;DR
- The study · one of the first prevalence measures. In 2003, Janet Johnston published one of the first data-driven studies of how common parental alienation actually is, measuring alignment and rejection in 215 children of divorce — including a high-conflict, custody-litigating group.
- The headline · severe alienation is a minority. Most children were not aligned with either parent at all (73% with mother, 81% with father). Strong, 'extreme' alignment with one parent — the genuine alienation end — ran only about 8–9% of the total sample, and around 12% even in the high-conflict group.
- Rejection is a continuum, not a switch. Johnston found children's attitudes are best described on a continuum from positive to negative, with relatively few at the extreme. Overall rejection scores were low. A normal preference for one parent is very different from pathological alienation.
- The '80% of divorces' claim is a myth. The widely-repeated figure that '80% of divorces involve parental alienation' is a misuse. It comes from Clawar and Rivlin's clinical caseload, where ~80% of already-high-conflict, court-referred families showed some degree of programming — not 80% of all divorces, and not 80% of children being alienated.
- A balanced, empirical source. Johnston is a neutral, empirically-grounded figure who helped reframe alienation as a multi-factor problem. Her data are often cited by critics precisely because they show alienation is real but uncommon — neither a myth nor an epidemic.
The Study at a Glance
| Authors | Johnston, J. R. |
|---|---|
| Published | 2003 |
| Journal | Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 31(2), 158–170 , pp. 158–170 |
| Method | An empirical study. Johnston measured, for 215 children of divorce, the extent of each child's alignment with one parent (none / some / much) and the degree of rejection of a parent on a five-point scale, across both a high-conflict custody-litigating group and a community comparison group — one of the first data-driven attempts to establish how common alienation actually is. |
| Sample | 215 children (aged 5–14), studied 2–3 years after parental separation: 124 from custody-litigating (high-conflict) families and 91 from a community sample |
| Full paper | View primary source → |
Love Over Exile is a plain-language research archive on parental alienation, written by Malcolm Smith — an alienated parent and author of the forthcoming book Love Over Exile — for non-specialist readers who want to understand the evidence base without a psychology degree or a journal subscription. This page reports the real numbers, and corrects a popular myth.
"How common is parental alienation?" sounds like it should have a simple answer, and the internet is happy to give you one: 80% of divorces, it says. That figure is wrong — and Janet Johnston's 2003 study is one of the best places to see why.
Definition · Alignment, rejection, and alienation
Alignment is how strongly a child leans toward one parent — which can be mild and normal ('some') or extreme ('much'). Rejection is how negatively a child views a parent, measured by degree. Parental alienation is the rare, pathological extreme: a child's unjustified, strident, one-sided rejection of a parent. Johnston's study measured all three, and found the extreme end is uncommon — a mild preference for one parent is very different from alienation.
Per Johnston (2003), J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 31(2), 158–170.
What did Johnston (2003) measure?
Most early writing on parental alienation was clinical and anecdotal — vivid case stories, but no numbers. Janet Johnston's 2003 paper, "Parental Alignments and Rejection," was one of the first attempts to actually measure how common alienation is, using data rather than impressions.
She studied 215 children of divorce, aged 5 to 14, two to three years after their parents separated. Importantly, the sample mixed two groups: 124 children from high-conflict, custody-litigating families (with family violence reported in 76% of them) and 91 from a community comparison group. If alienation were common anywhere, it should show up in that high-conflict group — which is exactly why the study is so useful.
The headline: most children weren't aligned with either parent
The central finding surprises people who assume alienation is everywhere. Across the whole sample, 73% of children showed no alignment with their mother, and 81% showed no alignment with their father. Most children of divorce, in other words, were not turned against either parent at all.
Of those who did lean toward one parent, most leaned mildly. About 17% showed 'some' alignment with the mother — a milder preference that is often completely normal. Only 8–9% showed 'much' or extreme alignment, the strident, one-sided rejection that corresponds to genuine alienation. And even within the high-conflict litigating group, strong alignment topped out around 12%.
Figure 1 · Alignment in Johnston's sample. Most children showed no alignment with either parent (73% with the mother, 81% with the father). A further ~17% (mother) / 11% (father) showed "some" alignment — a mild, often normal preference. Only ~8–9% reached the "much" or extreme end that corresponds to genuine alienation, rising to roughly 12% in the high-conflict litigating subsample.
The shape of the data is the point: alienation is the rare extreme of a continuum, and a mild preference for one parent is a completely different thing. After Johnston (2003), J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 31(2); figures from Table 1.
Johnston also measured rejection as a degree, not a yes-or-no, and found overall scores were low — under 2 on a five-point scale for both parents. Her conclusion: "children's attitudes toward both parents after divorce are best described on a continuum from positive to negative, with relatively few children being extremely aligned or rejecting."
Why this matters: real, but rare
It is easy to misread this finding in either direction, so it is worth being precise. Johnston's data do not say alienation is a myth — severe alienation genuinely exists, and for the families it affects it is devastating. What the data say is that it is uncommon: an infrequent occurrence even among divorcing families, and far from the dominant outcome.
Her study also found that rejection usually has multiple causes rather than one "brainwashing" parent — she noted that rejected parents are sometimes the more influential architects of their own alienation. That empirical, multi-factor picture is why, two years earlier, she co-authored the field's influential reformulation of alienation around "the alienated child".
The '80% of divorces' myth, dismantled
Now to that internet statistic. The claim that "80% of divorces involve parental alienation" is one of the most-repeated figures in the field — and it is a misuse of real research.
The 80% comes from Stanley Clawar and Brynne Rivlin's American Bar Association book Children Held Hostage, a twelve-year study of roughly 700 families — families who were already in court fighting over custody. Within that high-conflict caseload, about 80% showed some degree of programming behaviour by a parent. Two distortions turn that real finding into a false myth.
Figure 2 · Anatomy of the "80%" myth. The real Clawar and Rivlin finding was that, among roughly 700 families already in court over custody, about 80% showed some degree of programming behaviour by a parent. Distortion one changes the group — from "high-conflict court cases" to "all divorces". Distortion two changes the measure — from "some programming by a parent" to "the child is alienated".
Strip out both distortions and the myth collapses: Johnston's representative data show severe alienation runs in the single to low-double digits, not 80%. Sources: Clawar & Rivlin (1991); Johnston (2003).
So the accurate statement is narrow and true: about 80% of the high-conflict, court-referred families in Clawar and Rivlin's caseload showed some degree of programming. The inaccurate statement — "80% of divorces involve parental alienation" — changes both the group and the measure, and inflates a clinical observation into a population epidemic.
| | What gets claimed | What the research actually says | |---|---|---| | The group | All divorces | ~700 families already in court over custody | | The measure | "Children are alienated" | "Some degree of programming by a parent" | | The rate | 80% | ~80% within that high-conflict caseload only | | Severe alienation | Implied to be the norm | ~8–9% even of divorcing children (Johnston) |
What does this mean for you?
If you are an alienated parent, this may feel like cold comfort — being told your devastating experience is "rare". But the accuracy works in your favour. Inflated claims like "80% of divorces" are easy for an opponent or a sceptical court to knock down, and when they fall they can take your credibility with them. The defensible position is the true one: severe alienation is real but uncommon, which is exactly why it deserves to be taken seriously when it does occur.
In practice, that means not leaning on shaky statistics. Describe the specific behaviours in your own case and their impact on your child — concrete, documented, hard to dismiss — rather than reaching for a dramatic prevalence figure that an evaluator may already know is wrong.
What are the honest limitations?
Johnston's sample is now over twenty years old, modest in size, and drawn from particular US settings, so the exact percentages should be read as indicative rather than definitive. Her measure of "alignment" is also not identical to a formal diagnosis of alienation, so mapping her 8–9% "extreme" figure onto "alienation rate" is a reasonable but imperfect translation. Prevalence estimates from later, larger studies vary with how alienation is defined and measured.
What is not in dispute across the better evidence is the direction of the finding: severe parental alienation is a minority phenomenon, even among high-conflict divorces, and the "80% of divorces" claim is a misuse of clinical data. Taking alienation seriously and stating its prevalence honestly are not in tension — they are the same task.
Primary Sources Cited
- Johnston, J. R. (2003) — Parental Alignments and Rejection: An Empirical Study of Alienation in Children of Divorce. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 31(2), 158–170. PMID 12875493 · open-access full text.
- Clawar, S. S., & Rivlin, B. V. (1991) — Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children. American Bar Association, Section of Family Law.
- Kelly, J. B., & Johnston, J. R. (2001) — The Alienated Child: A Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome. Family Court Review 39(3), 249–266. DOI 10.1111/j.174-1617.2001.tb00609.x.
- Harman, J. J., Leder-Elder, S., & Biringen, Z. (2019) — Prevalence of Parental Alienation Drawn From a Representative Poll. Children and Youth Services Review 106, 104471. DOI 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104471.
Last reviewed and updated on 9 June 2026 by Malcolm Smith.
Frequently asked questions
How common is parental alienation?
It is a minority phenomenon, even among high-conflict divorces — that is the core finding of Johnston's 2003 study and is supported by later prevalence research. In Johnston's sample of 215 children, most were not strongly aligned with either parent (73% showed no alignment with their mother, 81% with their father), and only about 8–9% showed the 'extreme' alignment that corresponds to genuine alienation; even in the high-conflict, custody-litigating group it ran around 12%. So while alienation is real and serious for the families it affects, it is far from the majority outcome of divorce. Claims that it occurs in most divorces are not supported by the data.
Is it true that 80% of divorces involve parental alienation?
No — this is a widely-repeated myth. The 80% figure comes from Clawar and Rivlin's book Children Held Hostage, which studied roughly 700 families who were already in court fighting over custody, and found that about 80% of those high-conflict families showed some degree of 'programming' behaviour by a parent. Two things get distorted when this becomes '80% of divorces'. First, the group changes: it was 80% of an already-high-conflict court caseload, not 80% of all divorces. Second, the measure changes: it was 'some programming by a parent', not 'the child became alienated'. The real rate of severe alienation, from representative data, is in the single to low-double digits.
What did Johnston's 2003 study actually find?
Johnston measured how strongly 215 children of divorce were aligned with one parent and how much they rejected the other. Most children were not aligned with either parent (73% showed no alignment with their mother, 81% with their father). About 17% showed 'some' alignment with the mother — a milder, often normal preference — and only 8–9% showed 'much' or extreme alignment, the level that corresponds to genuine alienation. Rejection overall was low, averaging under 2 on a five-point scale. Her conclusion was that children's attitudes sit on a continuum, with relatively few at the extreme — alienation is real but uncommon.
Does a child preferring one parent mean they are alienated?
No, and Johnston's data make the distinction clearly. A mild preference for one parent — what she called 'some' alignment — is common and often completely normal, reflecting temperament, age, or shared interests. It is very different from the 'extreme' alignment of genuine alienation, where a child stridently and one-sidedly rejects a parent without good reason. Confusing the two is one of the most common errors in this area. Most children of divorce who lean toward one parent are not alienated; alienation is the rare, pathological end of a continuum, not any preference along it.
Is parental alienation a myth, then?
No — and Johnston's work does not say it is. Her data show that severe alienation genuinely exists; it is simply uncommon rather than universal. That is an important distinction: 'real but rare' is not the same as 'fake'. The mistake on one side is to deny alienation happens at all; the mistake on the other is to claim it happens in most divorces. Johnston's empirical, middle position — alienation is real, multi-causal, and a minority phenomenon — is the one best supported by the evidence, and it is why inflated statistics actually undermine the cause they are meant to support.
Who is Janet Johnston?
Janet R. Johnston is a Professor Emerita at San José State University and one of the most respected empirical researchers on high-conflict divorce, domestic violence and alienated children. She was formerly Director of Research at a major centre for the study of family transitions, and she co-authored the influential 2001 reformulation of parental alienation around 'the alienated child' and a multi-factor model. She is regarded as a balanced, neutral-to-critical figure — she affirms that alienation exists while insisting, on the evidence, that it is uncommon and has multiple causes rather than a single 'brainwashing' parent.
References
- Johnston, J. R. (2003). Parental Alignments and Rejection: An Empirical Study of Alienation in Children of Divorce . Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 31(2), 158–170 , 158–170. · Primary study summarised on this page.
- Clawar, S. S., & Rivlin, B. V. (1991). Children Held Hostage . American Bar Association (Section of Family Law). Source
- Kelly, J. B., & Johnston, J. R. (2001). The Alienated Child: A Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome . Family Court Review 39(3), 249–266. Source
- Harman, J. J., Leder-Elder, S., & Biringen, Z. (2019). Prevalence of Parental Alienation Drawn From a Representative Poll . Children and Youth Services Review 106, 104471. Source
See the full curated bibliography on the research page.
How to cite this summary
APA 7th edition
Smith, M. (2026). How Common Is Parental Alienation? Johnston (2003) and the '80%' Myth [Summary of Johnston, J. R. (2003)]. Love Over Exile. https://loveoverexile.com/parental-alienation-research/johnston-2003-alienation-prevalence/
When citing the underlying research, please cite the primary study (entry 1 above) directly.
About the researchers
Parental Alignments and Rejection: An Empirical Study of Alienation in Children of Divorce (2003) was authored by 1 researchers:
-
Janet R. Johnston, PhD · Author
Professor Emerita, Department of Justice Studies, San José State University
Janet R. Johnston is an American researcher and Professor Emerita at San José State University, with three decades of empirical work on high-conflict and litigating divorce, domestic violence, child abduction and alienated children. She was formerly Director of Research at the Judith Wallerstein Center for the Family in Transition and co-authored the influential book In the Name of the Child. She co-wrote the 2001 reformulation of parental alienation around 'the alienated child' — and is widely regarded as a balanced, empirically-grounded figure whose data are cited across the field's divides precisely because they show alienation is real but uncommon.
