Parentification: What it Is, Types and Characteristics of This Family Problem

Every family asks something of its children. Helping with dishes, looking after a younger sibling for an afternoon, keeping the house tidy — these are reasonable, age-appropriate contributions to shared family life. But there is a point where that contribution crosses a line, quietly and often without anyone naming it, into something fundamentally different. When a child is consistently required to assume the emotional or practical role of an adult within their own family — when they become the caregiver, the mediator, the confidant, the household manager — that is no longer a chore. It is parentification, and it is recognized as a significant family dysfunction with lasting psychological consequences.

The term was introduced into clinical and research literature through the work of family therapist Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy, who used it to describe the reversal of the parent-child relationship — a dynamic in which the child fulfills functions that belong to the adult, while the parent occupies the dependent position. Since then, psychologists, family therapists, and developmental researchers have worked to understand not only what parentification is but what causes it, how it manifests, how it differs from one family to another, and what it costs the children who live through it.

This is a topic that matters because it is far more common than most people realize, and far less often named. Many adults who were parentified as children do not recognize their own history as unusual. They were told they were mature, helpful, and responsible. They were praised for it. The idea that something harmful was also happening — that they were being asked to carry weight they were never equipped to carry — can take years, sometimes decades, to arrive. Understanding what parentification actually is, in all its forms and characteristics, is the first step toward that clarity.

This article offers a comprehensive look at parentification as a family phenomenon: its definition, its types, the conditions that give rise to it, the signs that distinguish it from normal responsibility, and the characteristics that mark it as a problem rather than a parenting style. It is intended for anyone trying to understand their own family history, support someone who was parentified, or simply deepen their knowledge of how family systems can go wrong — and how children adapt when they do.

What Parentification Means: A Clear Definition for a Commonly Misunderstood Concept

Parentification occurs when a child is required to take on roles, responsibilities, or emotional functions that developmentally and appropriately belong to an adult — most often a parent. The defining feature is not any single task or behavior but the reversal of the caregiving relationship: instead of the parent providing care, guidance, and emotional containment, the child provides these things to the parent, to the family system, or to both simultaneously.

The term was introduced by Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy in the context of his work on family systems and intergenerational relational dynamics. He described parentification as a form of invisible loyalty — a transaction in which the child sacrifices their own developmental needs in service of the family system, often without conscious awareness on anyone’s part. The child does not choose this role. They are placed in it, usually gradually, by circumstances, by family need, or by a parent who is unable to meet their own or their children’s emotional or practical needs without assistance from the child.

Parentification is not a synonym for being a responsible child. The distinction matters enormously, and it is one we will return to throughout this article. What makes parentification a psychological problem rather than a developmental milestone is the combination of several factors: the developmental inappropriateness of the responsibilities, the chronicity and consistency of the role, the absence of adequate adult guidance and support, the emotional burden placed on the child, and — crucially — the degree to which the child’s own needs are displaced or ignored in the process.

A nine-year-old who helps prepare dinner while a parent supervises is learning a useful life skill. A nine-year-old who prepares dinner every evening because a parent is emotionally absent or unavailable, and who feels responsible for ensuring younger siblings are fed, is something different. The task may look similar. The relational context — who holds responsibility for whom — is entirely different. It is the relational context, not the task itself, that defines parentification.

The Two Main Types of Parentification and How They Differ

Psychologists consistently identify two primary types of parentification: instrumental and emotional. Both involve role reversal, but they operate through different mechanisms and produce somewhat different effects. Many children experience both types simultaneously, which tends to compound the psychological impact.

Instrumental parentification involves the assumption of practical, functional adult responsibilities within the household. A child who manages grocery shopping, prepares meals for the family, pays household bills, provides primary care for younger siblings or a disabled family member, or handles adult administrative tasks has been instrumentally parentified. The tasks are concrete and observable — which often means this form of parentification is more readily identified, though not always named for what it is.

Emotional parentification is subtler but, according to clinical and research literature, often more psychologically damaging. It involves a child becoming the emotional support system for one or both parents — or for the family as a whole. This might look like a child who listens to a parent’s complaints about their marriage, their finances, or their struggles at work. It might look like a child who has learned to read a parent’s emotional state the moment they walk through the door and adjusts their behavior accordingly to prevent conflict or manage the parent’s mood. It might look like a child who is treated as a peer by a parent — the parent’s best friend, therapist, or partner in all but name.

Emotional parentification is particularly disruptive because it requires the child to suppress and subordinate their own emotional experience in order to remain available for the parent’s. There is no space for the child’s fear, sadness, or anger when the child is managing the adult’s. This creates what developmental psychologists describe as a profound inversion of the attachment relationship — the person who should be a secure base becomes the person who requires regulating.

A third distinction that appears in clinical literature is between parent-focused and sibling-focused parentification. In parent-focused parentification, the child’s primary caregiving role is directed toward one or both parents. In sibling-focused parentification, the child assumes primary responsibility for younger siblings — including physical care, emotional support, and supervision — in place of an absent or incapacitated parent. These categories are not mutually exclusive; many parentified children carry both roles simultaneously.

What Causes Parentification: Family Conditions That Create Role Reversal

Parentification does not arise from a single cause. It develops in response to a range of family conditions, most of which share a common thread: the adult caregivers in the family are unable, for whatever reason, to fully occupy the parental role. When parental capacity is diminished, the family system — often unconsciously — redistributes that responsibility, and the most available, capable, and emotionally sensitive person in the household takes it up. That person is frequently the child.

Conditions commonly associated with parentification include:

• Parental mental illness. When a parent is living with depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, or another condition that limits their emotional availability or functioning capacity, children often step in to fill the caregiving gap. The child learns to manage the parent’s emotional states, anticipate crises, and provide stability that the parent cannot maintain independently.
• Substance use and addiction. Families affected by alcohol or drug dependency are among the most commonly associated with parentification. Children in these households may take over household management, protect younger siblings, manage the parent’s behavior, or cover for the parent in social and practical contexts — carrying a level of responsibility and secrecy that no child should hold.
• Chronic physical illness or disability. A parent managing serious or long-term physical illness may lean on their child for practical care — personal assistance, household management, logistics — often out of necessity rather than neglect, but with similar developmental costs for the child.
• Single parenthood under extreme stress. A single parent managing multiple jobs, financial hardship, and social isolation may turn to their most capable child for support — practical, emotional, or both — without recognizing that the demands being placed on the child exceed what is developmentally appropriate.
• Divorce and high-conflict separations. When parents separate acrimoniously, children are sometimes recruited — consciously or not — as emotional supporters, mediators, or even messengers between warring adults. The child who comforts a distraught parent, manages parental conflict, or relays communications between households is carrying an adult emotional burden.
• Immigration and cultural displacement. In immigrant families where children gain language fluency before parents, children may be placed in the role of translator, cultural navigator, and practical intermediary for the family in educational, medical, legal, and administrative contexts — a particular form of instrumental parentification with its own distinct psychological weight.
• Emotional immaturity in parents. Parentification can also occur in families without any of the above circumstances — simply when a parent is emotionally immature, narcissistic, or has never developed adequate self-regulation skills and therefore uses their child as an emotional resource without recognizing the harm in doing so.

It bears repeating that parentification does not always emerge from deliberate neglect or conscious harm. Many parents who parentify their children love them deeply and have no awareness that they are placing inappropriate burdens on them. Understanding the causes is not about assigning blame. It is about understanding the system dynamics that allow role reversal to take hold and persist.

Key Characteristics That Distinguish Parentification From Normal Family Responsibility

One of the most common questions people ask when first encountering the concept of parentification is: “But how is that different from just having responsibilities?” It is a fair question, and the answer matters — both for recognizing the problem and for preventing unnecessary pathologizing of families where children contribute meaningfully without being harmed.

The characteristics that distinguish parentification from appropriate developmental responsibility include:

1. Developmental inappropriateness. The responsibilities placed on the child exceed what can be reasonably expected of someone at their developmental stage. A seven-year-old managing household finances or serving as a parent’s emotional confidant is not being given a growth opportunity. They are being handed a burden their cognitive, emotional, and neurological development does not yet support.
2. Chronicity and consistency. Parentification is not a single incident or a temporary adjustment during a family crisis. It is a sustained, ongoing role that the child occupies without reprieve. The difference between “I needed your help while I was unwell” and “This is just how our family works” is the difference between a temporary adaptation and a structural feature of the child’s life.
3. Absence of adequate adult support. In a healthy family, even when children take on responsibilities, adults remain present to guide, supervise, and take ultimate accountability. In parentification, the adult has effectively ceded that position — the child is the de facto decision-maker, caretaker, or emotional manager, without adequate backup from the adults who should be carrying that role.
4. Displacement of the child’s own needs. The parentified child’s needs — emotional, developmental, social, recreational — are consistently subordinated to the family’s needs or the parent’s needs. The child does not have the space to simply be a child. Their inner life, their struggles, their developmental requirements go largely unattended.
5. Conditional love or implicit obligation. Parentified children often sense, correctly, that their acceptance and standing within the family depends on fulfilling their caretaking role. If they step back, resist, or show their own needs, they risk a parent’s distress, withdrawal, anger, or destabilization of the household. The caregiving is not freely chosen. It is felt as obligatory.
6. The child carries emotional weight that belongs to adults. Whether through explicit sharing of adult problems, implicit emotional burden, or the constant vigilance required to manage an unstable family system, the parentified child is processing emotional content that exceeds their capacity. This is perhaps the most defining characteristic of all.

None of these characteristics requires dramatic family dysfunction to be present. A family can appear entirely ordinary from the outside while internally operating through these dynamics. Parentification often hides in plain sight, masked by the child’s apparent maturity and the family’s functional surface.

How Parentification Shows Up Day-to-Day: Recognizable Signs in Children and Families

Parentification can be identified in the patterns of daily family life, in the child’s behavior, and in the relational dynamics between parent and child. Some signs are visible from the outside; others only become apparent on closer inspection of how the family actually functions behind closed doors.

Signs of parentification in the child include:

• Unusual emotional maturity. The child seems wise beyond their years — attuned to adult emotional states, skilled at managing other people’s feelings, and remarkably capable in situations most children their age would find overwhelming. This is frequently mistaken for a personality trait rather than an adaptive response to family pressure.
• Anxiety and hypervigilance. The parentified child is often acutely alert to their environment — monitoring parental mood, anticipating conflict, scanning for signs of distress. This vigilance is exhausting and produces anxiety that may manifest as difficulty sleeping, physical complaints, or an inability to relax even in safe settings.
• Difficulty with peer relationships. Because the parentified child has been operating in an adult emotional world, the concerns and conversations of same-age peers can feel trivial or confusing. They may feel more comfortable with adults than with children their own age.
• Suppressed emotional expression. The parentified child has learned that their emotions are not the priority. They may seem contained, calm, or stoic in situations that would produce visible distress in other children — not because they are not affected, but because expression feels unsafe or pointless.
• Excessive caretaking behavior toward others. The child takes care of younger siblings, comforts distressed adults, steps in to mediate conflicts, or takes on organizational roles in group settings in ways that go beyond what is age-appropriate.
• Strong sense of duty and guilt. The child feels personally responsible for the emotional wellbeing of family members and experiences guilt when unable to meet those needs — a guilt that is disproportionate and often invisible to outsiders who see only a conscientious, helpful child.

Signs of a parentifying dynamic in the family include a parent who shares adult worries with the child openly, treats the child as a confidant, depends on the child for emotional comfort, criticizes or becomes distressed when the child is unavailable or sets limits, and organizes family logistics around the child’s management of siblings or household. The family may function, but its functioning depends on the child’s labor in ways that most families do not.

The Difference Between Adaptive and Destructive Parentification

Not all parentification produces identical outcomes. Researchers and clinicians have identified a meaningful distinction between what might be called adaptive parentification — where children take on some additional responsibilities during temporary family crises and emerge with enhanced competence and resilience — and destructive parentification, where the role is chronic, exceeds the child’s capacity, and produces lasting psychological harm.

Adaptive forms of increased responsibility tend to occur within a context of genuine parental acknowledgment. The parent recognizes what they are asking, expresses gratitude, maintains their ultimate accountability for the family’s wellbeing, and ensures the child has space for their own needs, relationships, and developmental tasks. A family that goes through a period of hardship — illness, financial crisis, the death of a family member — and in which a child contributes more than usual while receiving adequate emotional support and acknowledgment, is not necessarily producing a parentified child.

Destructive parentification, by contrast, tends to occur within a context of invisibility. The parent does not recognize what they are asking. The child’s contribution is taken for granted rather than acknowledged. There is no sense that the arrangement is temporary. The child’s needs are consistently secondary. The emotional burden is disproportionate to what the child can manage. And critically, the child feels that their value within the family depends on continuing to perform their role.

The distinction also involves what researchers call “parentification perception” — the degree to which the child experiences their responsibilities as chosen or imposed, as fair or unfair, as recognized or invisible. Children who feel seen and appreciated for what they contribute, and who have some sense of agency, tend to show more resilience than those who feel trapped, invisible, and obligated. This is not a justification for excessive demands on children, but it does clarify why two children in apparently similar circumstances might show different long-term outcomes.

How Parentification Affects Attachment and Development in Children

The developmental consequences of parentification are rooted in its disruption of the fundamental attachment relationship. In healthy development, the parent serves as what attachment theorist John Bowlby described as a secure base — a reliable, available, emotionally attuned figure from whom the child can explore the world and to whom they can return for comfort and regulation. Parentification inverts this structure completely.

When the child is consistently required to regulate the parent’s emotional state rather than the reverse, the secure base disappears. The child learns, through repeated experience, that their own emotional needs will not be reliably met — that distress needs to be managed internally, that vulnerability is dangerous, and that emotional availability is a resource to be given, not received. This disrupts the development of secure attachment, typically producing one or more forms of insecure attachment: anxious, avoidant, or disorganized patterns that influence how the child later forms relationships with others.

Research in developmental psychology links parentification to specific disruptions across multiple developmental domains:

• Identity development. Children who spend their formative years in service of others’ needs often struggle to develop a distinct sense of who they are apart from their caretaking role. Their identity becomes organized around function — being useful, being needed — rather than around authentic values, preferences, and inner life.
• Emotional regulation. Because their own emotions were consistently deprioritized, parentified children often develop difficulties identifying, tolerating, and expressing emotional experience. They may show either suppression — appearing flat and disconnected — or dysregulation when emotional demands finally exceed their coping capacity.
• Cognitive development. Children who are preoccupied with managing family dynamics and adult emotional states have less cognitive bandwidth for the learning, play, and exploration that drive normal cognitive development. Academic difficulties in parentified children are not uncommon, despite their often impressive emotional intelligence.
• Social development. The parentified child’s peer world is compromised by their orientation toward adult concerns. They may lack age-appropriate social skills, find it difficult to tolerate the relative triviality of peer interactions, and feel fundamentally different from age-mates whose childhood has followed a more typical course.

These developmental effects are not destiny. They are patterns that formed in a particular relational context, and they can shift with recognition, support, and appropriate therapeutic work. But they do not simply resolve with time, which is why understanding parentification — clearly and early — serves the child’s long-term wellbeing.

The Intergenerational Transmission of Parentification

One of the most significant characteristics of parentification as a family problem is its tendency to repeat across generations. Parents who parentify their children were often parentified themselves. The relational template they internalized — in which children function as emotional or practical resources for adults — becomes the implicit model for their own parenting, usually without any conscious awareness that it is problematic.

This intergenerational transmission operates through multiple pathways. It operates through unresolved attachment patterns — a parent whose own attachment needs were never adequately met may unconsciously seek to have those needs met by their child. It operates through schema inheritance — the belief that this is simply how families function, that there is nothing unusual about expecting children to provide emotional support or manage adult responsibilities. And it operates through emotional dysregulation — a parent who was never taught to regulate their own emotional states may rely on external co-regulation, and the most available external regulator in the household is the child.

Understanding this intergenerational dimension is not about blame. Parents who parentify their children are almost always people who were themselves not adequately cared for. They did not receive a different model. That context matters for empathy. It does not, however, change the impact on the child. The cycle ends when someone in the family line does the work of recognizing what happened, grieving what was lost, and developing different patterns — often with therapeutic support. Awareness is where intergenerational cycles break.

Can Parentification Be Prevented? Protective Factors and Healthy Boundaries

Parentification can be prevented or significantly mitigated even in families under considerable stress, provided certain key protective factors are in place. The most important of these is adult self-awareness — a parent who recognizes their own needs, has access to appropriate support, and maintains a clear sense of the appropriate parent-child boundary is far less likely to parentify their child even during periods of significant difficulty.

Practical protective factors include:

1. Adult support networks. When parents have other adults they can turn to — friends, family members, therapists, support groups — they are less likely to rely on children for emotional sustenance. Isolation is one of the most significant risk factors for parentification. Community is one of its most effective preventions.
2. Age-appropriate task assignment. Being deliberate about what is asked of children at each developmental stage helps families maintain the distinction between healthy contribution and inappropriate burden. A useful guiding question is: does this task give the child a sense of competence and contribution, or does it primarily serve the adult’s needs?
3. Maintaining emotional privacy. Parents can share that they are having a difficult time without recruiting the child to manage or solve it. Modeling that adults experience difficulty and seek adult support is genuinely healthy for children to witness. What is harmful is making the child responsible for the parent’s emotional state.
4. Family therapy. When family dynamics have already shifted into role reversal, family therapy with a systemic or attachment-informed therapist can help realign the structure. Therapy provides a space to name what has happened without blame and to practice different relational patterns with support.
5. Individual therapy for parents. When parentification is driven by a parent’s own unresolved trauma, mental health challenges, or attachment difficulties, individual therapeutic work for the parent is often the most direct and effective intervention for the child’s wellbeing.

None of these measures requires perfection. Families are complex, stressful, and imperfect — by definition. What matters is not perfect structure but genuine attentiveness to the child’s developmental needs and the willingness to course-correct when patterns begin to drift toward role reversal. Awareness, more than any other resource, is what protects children.

FAQs About Parentification and Family Role Reversal

What is the official definition of parentification in psychology?

Parentification is defined in psychological and family systems literature as the reversal of the parent-child relationship, in which a child assumes adult responsibilities — either practical or emotional — that developmentally and appropriately belong to the parent. The term was introduced by family therapist Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy to describe a relational dynamic in which the child’s own developmental needs are subordinated to the needs of the parent or family system. It is not a formal diagnostic category in the DSM or ICD but is widely recognized in clinical, developmental, and family therapy literature as a significant form of developmental disruption and relational trauma. The defining feature is the role reversal itself — the child occupying the caregiving position while the parent occupies the dependent one — rather than any specific task or behavior viewed in isolation.

What is the difference between emotional and instrumental parentification?

Instrumental parentification involves taking on physical and practical adult responsibilities — managing the household, preparing meals, caring for younger siblings as a primary caregiver, handling finances, or serving as a family interpreter or liaison. Emotional parentification involves becoming the emotional support system for a parent or family members — listening to adult problems, providing comfort and reassurance, mediating parental conflicts, regulating a parent’s emotional states, or serving as a confidant for adult concerns. Emotional parentification tends to be subtler and harder to observe from the outside, but clinical literature suggests it may be particularly disruptive to child development because it requires the child to suppress their own emotional life in order to remain available for the parent. Many children experience both types simultaneously.

Is parentification always harmful, or can it sometimes be positive?

Some developmental researchers distinguish between adaptive and destructive parentification. When children take on additional responsibilities during temporary family crises, within a context where their contribution is genuinely acknowledged, their needs remain attended to, and adults retain ultimate caregiving responsibility, some degree of increased contribution can support the development of empathy, competence, and resilience. However, chronic, developmentally inappropriate, and unacknowledged parentification — where the child’s own needs are consistently displaced and their role is structural rather than temporary — is associated with significant long-term psychological harm. The critical variables are not the tasks themselves but the relational context: whether the child feels seen, whether their needs are met, whether an adult ultimately holds the family’s wellbeing, and whether the arrangement is proportionate to what the child can developmentally sustain.

What are the most common causes of parentification in families?

Parentification most commonly arises when a parent’s capacity to fully occupy the caregiving role is significantly diminished. The most commonly identified contributing conditions include parental mental illness, substance use disorders, chronic physical illness or disability, single parenthood under severe stress, high-conflict divorce, and emotional immaturity or narcissistic traits in a parent. Immigration and cultural displacement can also produce a specific form of instrumental parentification when children serve as translators and cultural navigators for their families. Importantly, parentification can also occur in families without obvious dysfunction — in households where parents are simply emotionally immature, chronically overwhelmed, or accustomed to relying on a capable child without awareness that the reliance is developmentally harmful.

How can you tell if a child is being parentified or is just a responsible child?

The key distinction lies not in the tasks a child performs but in the relational context, the chronicity, and the degree to which the child’s own needs are being met. A responsible child performs age-appropriate tasks with adult guidance and support, has space for play and peer connection, and does not feel that their acceptance in the family depends on their caregiving role. A parentified child consistently performs responsibilities that exceed their developmental stage, lacks adequate adult oversight, has little space for their own emotional needs, and experiences an implicit or explicit obligation that makes stepping back feel dangerous. Other distinguishing signs include the child’s hypervigilance about adult emotional states, difficulty with age-appropriate peer relationships, and a sense of responsibility for the wellbeing of family members that goes far beyond what any child should carry.

Does parentification affect attachment in children?

Yes, and this is among its most significant developmental consequences. Healthy attachment development depends on the child being able to turn to a consistent, emotionally available caregiver for comfort and regulation. Parentification inverts this dynamic: the child provides regulation rather than receiving it, and the parent occupies the dependent position. This disrupts the development of secure attachment and is associated with the formation of insecure attachment patterns — anxious, avoidant, or disorganized — that influence the child’s subsequent relationships throughout life. Research published in developmental and family psychology literature consistently links emotional parentification in particular to insecure attachment, interpersonal difficulties in adulthood, and challenges with emotional regulation. The earlier parentification begins and the more chronic it is, the more significant its impact on attachment development tends to be.

Can parentification be passed down through generations?

Yes. Parentification has a documented tendency to repeat across generations — parents who were parentified as children often reproduce similar dynamics with their own children, typically without conscious awareness or intent. This intergenerational transmission occurs through multiple mechanisms: unresolved attachment needs that the parent unconsciously seeks to have met by their child, internalized schemas about family roles in which this kind of relational reversal feels normal or expected, and emotional dysregulation patterns that lead the parent to rely on the child for co-regulation. The cycle tends to continue until someone in the family line recognizes what is happening and does the deliberate psychological work — often with therapeutic support — of developing different relational patterns. Awareness is consistently identified in clinical literature as the most critical factor in breaking intergenerational transmission of parentification.

What kind of therapy helps adults who were parentified as children?

Several therapeutic approaches have demonstrated relevance for adults healing from parentified childhoods. Attachment-focused therapy directly addresses the insecure relational patterns that parentification produces, providing a corrective relational experience within the therapeutic relationship itself. Internal Family Systems therapy helps individuals reconnect with the parts of themselves that were suppressed or abandoned in childhood — including the child self that never received appropriate care. Schema therapy identifies and works with deep-rooted beliefs about self-worth, caregiving obligation, and emotional entitlement that formed during the parentified childhood. Somatic and body-based therapies address the physical dimension of chronic stress and emotional suppression that parentification often produces. CBT approaches help challenge the self-critical and perfectionistic thought patterns common among formerly parentified adults. In all cases, the quality of the therapeutic relationship — its safety, consistency, and genuine attunement — is itself a significant part of the healing process.

Bibliography

• Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., & Spark, G. (1973). Invisible Loyalties: Reciprocity in Intergenerational Family Therapy. Harper & Row.
• Jurkovic, G. J. (1997). Lost Childhoods: The Plight of the Parentified Child. Brunner/Mazel.
• Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and Family Therapy. Harvard University Press.
• Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. Basic Books.
• Chase, N. D. (Ed.). (1999). Burdened Children: Theory, Research, and Treatment of Parentification. Sage Publications.
• Hooper, L. M. (2007). Expanding the discussion regarding parentification and its varied outcomes: Implications for mental health research and practice. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 29(4), 322–337.
• Earley, L., & Cushway, D. (2002). The parentified child. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7(2), 163–178.
• Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and Recovery. Basic Books.
• Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema Therapy: A Practitioner’s Guide. Guilford Press.
• Schwartz, R. C. (1995). Internal Family Systems Therapy. Guilford Press.
• van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The Body Keeps the Score. Viking.
• Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.