The Role of Parental Infidelity Experience and Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance in the Relationship Between Parentification and Relational Ethics

Abstract

This study investigates the moderating role of parental infidelity experience in the association between parentification and relational ethics, while controlling for attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. The dependent variable of this study is relational ethics, while the independent variable is parentification. Experiences of parental infidelity serve as the moderator variable, and attachment anxiety and avoidance are included as control variables. The sample consisted of 230 adult women aged 19–69, all residing in Türkiye. After obtaining approval from the institutional ethics committee, data were collected online in 2025 using measures included the Personal Information Form, the Filial Responsibility Scale-Adult Version, the Relational Ethics Scale, and the Experiences in Close Relationships Inventory-II. The results indicated that parentification did not significantly predict relational ethics. However, women who experienced both parentification and parental infidelity had significantly lower relational ethics scores. These findings suggest that parental infidelity experience plays a moderating role in the relationship between parentification and relational ethics. Attachment anxiety, entered as a control variable, showed a strong and significant negative association with relational ethics, whereas attachment avoidance was not significantly related to relational ethics. Overall, the findings are consistent with the existing literature and contribute to the literature, particularly by extending the understanding of relational ethics within horizontal relationships. Furthermore, the findings are expected to provide guidance for practitioners by highlighting key factors that influence relational ethics in marital and couple counseling.

Keywords

parental infidelity parentification relational ethics attachment romantic relationships insecure attachment

Introduction

Humans are inherently social beings, and they construct a sense of meaning, safety, and belonging through social relationships. The quality of these relationships and the roles individuals assume within them are affected considerably by early stage life experiences, particularly the interactions expreienced within the family as a child (Miller, 2016). One such defining childhood experience is parental infidelity. Infidelity, defined as the violation of commitment and intimacy norms established in romantic relationships through involvement with a third party without the knowledge or consent of the other partner, can take many different forms ranging from flirting to sexual intercourse (Önder, 2019; Sevi et al., 2020). The discovery of infidelity can be a traumatic experience not only for the couple experiencing it but also for the children in the family system (Lusterman, 2005). Such situtations may lead individuals to experience difficult emotions such as guilt, anxiety, depression, fear, and anger and it can result in emotional and cognitive changes that are similar to a grieving process (Ablow et al., 2009; Dean, 2011; Snyder et al., 2008).

Infidelity between parents is a phenomenon that affects not only the couple's relationship but also the structural boundaries within the family system. According to Schade and Sandberg (2012), emotional distancing, intense conflict, or physical and psychological withdrawal may occur between parents following the discovery of the infidelity. Such changes in the parental relationship can lead to developmentally inappropriate alliances and boundary violations between the child and the parent (Negash & Morgan, 2016). In the context of infidelty, parental behaviors such as requesting the child to keep secrets (Lusterman, 2005), sharing their emotional burdens with the child while expecting emotional support or directliy or indirectly involving the child in conflicts they have with their partner (Thorson, 2020) may blur the hierarchical structure of the family and contribute to the dsyfunctional triangles (Negash & Morgan, 2016). These dynamics may result in adverse psychological outcomes for the child, including emotional isolation from the family system, guilt, distrust, and ambivalent emotions towards parents (Miller, 2016; Schmidt et al., 2016). In addition to these boundary violations, as the duration and intensity of conflicts caused by the infidelity increase, the child may begin to perceive their parents’ capacity to cope with the crisis and to meet their needs as insufficient (Schmidt et al., 2016). As a result of this process, the child may take on the burden of maintaining the functunality of the family and, in an effort to restore balance within the family system, may be forced to assume responsibilites that are developmentally inappropriate while subordinating their own needs (Minuchin, 1988). At this stage, the child begins to function as a “parent” who carries the emotional and/or instrumental burdens of the parents (Chase, 1999). In summary, boundary dissolutions and dysfunctional triangulation triggered by parental infidelity lead to fundamental structural disruptions that cause the child to go through the process of parentification.

Parentification is a multidimensional notion that refers to a child's assumption of responsibilities for which they are not developmentally ready in terms of roles and functions within the family (Chase, 1999). When a child undertakes tasks such as performing household duties, caring for siblings, or contributing to the family's financial resources in response to the needs of the family members, this process is referred to as “instrumental parentification” (Jurkovic, 1997; Jurkovic et al., 1991). In contrast, the type that involves the child assuming emotional burdens, such as mediating family conflicts, calming others, or keeping secrets, and responding to the emotional needs of parents and siblings in ways that require the suppression of the child's own emotional needs, is defined as “emotional parentification” (Hooper, 2007; Jurkovic, 1997).

Gender is a determining factor in the phenomenon of parentification. A substantial body of research has demonstrated that girls experience parentification more frequently and more intensely than boys (Burnett et al., 2006; Lang, 2016; Macfie et al., 2005; McMahon & Luthar, 2007). This difference is thought to reflect both women's heightened sensitivity to family-related difficulties and their socialization into caregiving and emotionally supportive roles that are more strongly reinforced within family and social contexts (Burnett et al., 2006; Gilligan, 1982). Particularly in mother–daughter relationships, mothers are more likely to engage in role reversal with their daughters and to demand more emotional support from them (Jacobvitz & Bush, 1996; Peris et al., 2008). Such dynamics may interfere with girls’ ability to develop their own identity and to achieve healthy differentiation from the family system (Goldner et al., 2022). Father–daughter parentification has been associated with decreased romantic relationship satisfaction as well as increased levels of depression and anxiety and a greater tendency toward insecure attachment (Baggett et al., 2015; Jacobvitz & Bush, 1996). These findings underscore the importance of examining how women's experiences of parentification shape the romantic relationships they establish in adulthood.

It has been suggested that children who experience parentification develop cognitive schemas that they perceive themselves as being valued only when they meet their parents’ expectations and needs, a process that may lead to the formation of maladaptive self-concepts over time (Chase, 1999; Goldner et al., 2016). In connection with these maladaptive schemas, it has been reported that individuals who experienced emotional parentification during childhood attempt to recreate similar intense relational dynamics to those established with their parents in their adult relationships, and tend to take on excessive responsibility and display compulsive caregiving tendencies in intimate relationships (Love & Robinson, 1990, as cited in Lutman, 2019; Bourassa, 2010; West & Keller, 1991). It is suggested that these individuals are more likely to gravitate toward self-centered partners, experience fears related to attachment and intimacy, exhibit unconstructive communication patterns, report lower levels of trust in their relationships, experience diminished romantic attraction, and encounter difficulties such as parent–partner role conflicts within marriage (Madden & Shaffer, 2016; Baggett et al., 2015; Love & Robinson, 1990, as cited in Lutman, 2019). Taken together, these findings indicate that both parental infidelity and parentification can leave lasting marks on individuals’ romantic relationships in adulthood. To better understand these effects, integrating attachment theory with the concept of relational ethics is considered important for conceptualizing the underlying psychosocial processes from a more comprehensive perspective.

Attachment is one of the fundamental constructs frequently examined in the literature in relation to both parental infidelity and parentification. According to Bowlby's (1969) attachment theory, the relationship an individual forms with their caregiver in infancy serves as a prototype for close relationships they will maintain throughout their lifespan. Hooper (2007) emphasises that attachment styles, particularly insecure forms of attachment, tend to be repeated in adulthood when they are established during childhood. Specifically, when the developmental needs of individuals who experience parentification during childhood are insufficiently met, this can disrupt the formation of secure attachment in relationships and contribute to the development of negative internal working models characterized by expectations that others will not provide care or support (Baggett et al., 2015; Hooper, 2007; Jurkovic, 1997).

At this point, the question of how these processes influence individuals’ attitudes toward the balance of “give and take,” their perceptions of fairness, and responsibility norms grounded in loyalty within relationships, in other words, how they shape relational ethics, becomes particularly important. The concept of relational ethics, which originates from the foundations of contextual therapy, is structured around the principles of compassion and accountability. Contextual therapy, developed by Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy, focuses on concepts such as fairness, accountabilty, and relational ethics in order to understand the nature of interpersonal relationships (Daneshpour & Ducommun-Nagy, 2025). Contextual therapy emphasizes the notion that individuals possess an innate sense of fairness and share a common tendency to seek justice in interpersonal exchanges (Adkins, 2010; as cited in van der Meiden, Noordegraaf & Ewijk, 2019). According to relational ethics, individuals expect fair returns for their relational investments and efforts. In healthy relational contexts, trust, balanced reciprocity, and fairness constitute core structural elements. The presence of these elements not only supports the maintenance of healthy family relationships but also contributes to the transmission of healthy relational experiences to future generations (Christie, 2006; Ducommun-Nagy, 2002). Relational ethics further emphasises the importance of individuals recognizing and accepting the needs and realities of others as equally valid as their own (Christie, 2006). Stated differently, relational ethics refers to the prioritization of mutual well-being, trust and relational bonds, the fair balancing of give and take, and the ability to balance inevitable fluctuations over time within relationships characterized by reciprocal expectations and needs (Daneshpour, 2025).

Contextual therapy distinguishes between two types of relationships: vertical and horizontal relationships. Vertical relationships are asymmetrical in nature and are structured through caregiving functions (e.g., parent–child relationships). On the other hand, horizontal relationships such as spousal, sibling, and peer relationships are characterized by a more egalitarian structure and involve mutual expectations and obligations (Boszormenyi-Nagy & Krasner, 1986; Fish, 2000). Contextual therapy suggests that changes occurring within an individual's family system may affect other interconnected individuals as well (Boszormenyi-Nagy & Krasner, 1986). In this regard, relational ethics functions as a bridge through which traces of the past are carried into newly formed future relationships (Hargrave & Pfitzer, 2004; as cited in Fishbane, 2023). When individuals enter new relationships while carrying unresolved relational legacies from their family of origin, their capacity for relational ethics may become limited. They may seek from their children or spouse what they were unable to receive from their family of origin; more specifically, they may perceive themselves as entitled to make such demands (Fishbane, 2023).

Accordingly, it can be assumed that experiencing parental infidelity within one's family of origin may influence the relationships individuals establish with others. Building on this premise, the present study considers it important to examine the concept of relational ethics alongside parental infidelity. Although limited in number, some studies have examined infidelity and relational ethics together in the literature. These studies have concluded that individuals who experienced parental infidelity exhibit lower levels of vertical relational ethics (Schmidt et al., 2016). The present study is expected to address an important gap in the literature by examining the association between parental infidelity and relational ethics in the context of horizontal relationships.

In summary, a review of the literature indicates that parental infidelity may damage relational bonds within the family system, leading children to assume developmentally inappropriate roles and to experience parentification (Hooper, 2008; Miller, 2016). This process can profoundly influence an individual's sense of self-worth and romantic relationship dynamics in adulthood by hindering the development of secure attachment. Moreover, similar to many cultural contexts, prevailing gender norms in Türkiye assume women to be “naturally” caregiving, nurturing, attentive, self-sacrificing, and emotional (Dökmen, 2004). In addition to studies showing that women engage more frequently in prosocial behaviors within interpersonal relationships, such as childcare, eldercare, and providing emotional support, compared to men, research conducted in Türkiye has shown that girls, in line with cultural expectations, often assume emotional and instrumental caregiving responsibilities within the family, particularly toward their siblings (Akkan, 2023; Eagly, 2009). As these findings suggest, socially assigned roles imposed on women increase their vulnerability to the effects of parentification more than men. Accordingly, the primary aim of the present study is to examine the moderating role of parental infidelity experience in the relationship between the levels of parentification and ethical responsibilities (balance in giving and receiving, loyalty, and self-sacrifice) in romantic relationships among women. Additionally, the potential influence of insecure attachment styles (anxiety and avoidance), which are considered relevant in this relationship, was also controlled for in the analyses.

To date, no study has been found in the literature that examines parental infidelity, parentification, and relational ethics together. In particular, the concept of relational ethics has been researched rarely in the Turkish literature. In this regard, the present study aims to make a unique contribution to the field by examining, within a multidimensional framework, how relational patterns developed in childhood are reflected in ethical relational behaviors in adulthood. In line with this aim, the present study will explore the moderating role of parental infidelity experiences in the relationship between parentification and relational ethics, while controlling for attachment styles. Understanding these relationships is expected to contribute not only to the improvement of individuals’ psychological functioning, but also to the development of relational integrity and satisfaction, the healthy resolution of the intergenerational transmission of dysfunctional relationship patterns, and the structuring of preventive interventions in family counseling.

Method

Research Model

The study aims to examine the moderating role of parental infidelity experience in the relationship between parentification and relational ethics. Attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were included in the model as covariates (control variables). The study was designed using a correlational survey model. Survey-type studies are descriptive research designs used in the social sciences to determine the characteristics of variables of interest within large populations (Can, 2017). The correlational survey model, in particular, is a type of survey research that examines the co-variation of two or more variables and determines the direction and strength of this association (Karasar, 2002). A diagram illustrating the theoretical model of the study is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The theoretical model of the study.

Study Group

The study group consists of 230 women aged 18 years and older who voluntarily agreed to participate in the research. The mean age of the participants is 31.98 years (SD = 9.54). Of the 230 participants in this study, 175 (76.1%) reported no experience of parental infidelity, whereas 55 participants (23.9%) indicated that they had experienced parental infidelity between their parents.

Data Collection Procedure

Data were collected in 2025 using Google Forms. Participants were first presented with an informed consent form and were asked to indicate whether they voluntarily agreed to take part in the study. The research was conducted only with participants who volunteered. The informed consent form stated that the study data would be used exclusively for scientific purposes and that participants could withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences. Prior to the data collection process, ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Pamukkale University Social and Human Sciences Research and Publication Ethics Committee (dated 23 July 2025; approval no. 68282350/2025/11).

Data Collection Instruments

Personal Information Form

In line with the purpose of the study, participants were given a personal information form prior to responding to the scales. This form included questions regarding participants’ age and whether parental infidelity had occurred between their parents (yes/no).

Filial Responsibility Scale-Adult Version

The Filial Responsibility Scale was originally developed by Jurkovicet al. (2001) and was adapted into Turkish by Karagöbek (2014) using an all-female sample. The scale consists of 25 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale, rated from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Higher scores indicate higher levels of parentification. In Karagöbek's study, the scale was analyzed as having a two-factor structure. Although the items loading on the first factor were largely related to emotional parentification, this factor also included items not directly associated with emotional parentification. Therefore, the first factor was labeled “parentification,” and the second factor was labeled “instrumental parentification.” In the original adaptation study, Cronbach's alpha coefficients were reported as 0.84 for the overall scale, 0.80 for the parentification subscale, and 0.19 for the instrumental parentification subscale. In this study, reliability analyses were conducted, and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were found to be 0.91 for the parentification subscale and 0.38 for the instrumental parentification subscale. It was observed that the relabilty coefficient of the instrumental parentification subscale did not meet the required criterion of 0.70 or above; therefore, this subscale was excluded from further analyses (Büyüköztürk, 2005).

Relational Ethics Scale

The Relational Ethics Scale was developed by Altınok (2022) as part of his doctoral dissertation conducted in Turkey and assesses the extent to which individuals endorse ethical principles in their relationships. In the scale development process, 97 items were initially generated based on the theoretical framework of Contextual Family Therapy. Following factor analysis, the scale was refined to its final 40-item version. The scale consists of four subdimensions and is rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at all appropriate for me) to 7 (Completely appropriate for me). The Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficients were reported as 0.91 for the “Balanced–Trustworthy” factor, 0.87 for the “Entitlement–Giving” factor, 0.80 for the “Entitlement–Receiving” factor, 0.72 for the “Entitlement–Destructive” factor, and 0.86 for the overall scale. In the present study, reliability analyses yielded a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.88 for the total scale.

Experiences in Close Relationships Inventory-II

The Experiences in Close Relationships Inventory-II (ECR-II) was originally developed by Fraley and colleagues (2000), and its validity and reliability were examined in a Turkish sample by Selçuk and colleagues (2005). The scale consists of a total of 36 items, with 18 items assessing attachment anxiety and 18 items assessing attachment avoidance. Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). Higher scores indicate higher levels of attachment avoidance or attachment anxiety. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the avoidance subscale is 0.90, and it is 0.86 for the anxiety subscale. The test–retest reliability coefficients for the avoidance and anxiety dimensions were 0.81 and 0.82, respectively. In the present study, Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated as 0.91 for the avoidance subscale and 0.91 for the anxiety subscale.

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using SPSS version 27. Pearson correlation analysis and PROCESS Model 1 moderation analysis were conducted in the analysis of the data. Prior to the analyses, the assumptions required for the moderation analysis were tested. First, the normality assumption was assessed by examining kurtosis and skewness values. Kurtosis values for the study variables ranged between −0.626 and 0.565, while skewness values ranged between −0.316 and 0.074. According to the literature, kurtosis and skewness values between the range of −1.96 to +1.96 are generally considered acceptable (Can, 2017). Therefore, the data of the present study can be considered normally distributed. As another prerequisite for conducting the moderation analysis, outliers were examined. The results indicated that the variables included in the analysis didn’t contain a number of outliers that would distort the normal distribution. In addition, the distribution graph of the standardized residuals and standardized predicted values showed a random distribution of points, and it was seen that both the linearity and homoscedasticity assumptions were met. The Durbin–Watson coefficient was calculated to assess the presence of autocorrelation among variables and yielded a value of 1.945. A Durbin–Watson value between 1.5 and 2.5 indicates that there is no autocorrelation (Kalaycı, 2009). Multicollinearity among the independent variables was examined using VIF values, and the values ranged between 1.087 and 1.480. Tolerance values, another indicator of multicollinearity, ranged from 0.676 to 0.920. According to the literature, VIF values below 10 and tolerance values below 0.30 indicate that there is not a multicollinearity concern (Büyüköztürk, 2005). Accordingly, it was concluded that there was no multicollinearity problem among the independent variables in the present study.

The experience of parental infidelity, which is a categorical variable in this study, was coded as a dummy variable. A dummy variable is created by recoding a categorical variable such that one category is designated as the reference group and excluded from the analysis (Büyüköztürk, 2005). In the present study, parental infidelity experience was coded as a dummy variable, with participants who reported parental infidelity coded as 1 and those who did not coded as 0. Finally, to reduce the risk of multicollinearity and to facilitate interpretation in the moderation analysis, all continuous independent variables were mean-centered (Hayes, 2018).

Consequently, in the moderation model tested in this study, relational ethics was used as the dependent variable, parentification as the independent variable, parental infidelity experience as the moderator, and attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance as control variables (covariates).

Findings

Descriptive statistics for the variables examined in the study, along with Pearson correlation coefficients among the variables, are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Variables.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5
1. Relational ethics	-
2. Parentification	−.224**	-
3. Parental infidelity experience	−.079	.389**	-
4. Attachment anxiety	−.594**	.282**	.200**	-
5. Attachment avoidance	−.390**	.127	.078	.526**	-
Mean	4.62	2.63	-	3.44	2.64
S. Deviation	.74	.87	-	1.13	1.03
Kurtosis	−.24	−.63	-	−.23	−.15
Skewness	−.32	.07	-	.56	.55

Note. **p < .01 level of significance.

A significant negative relationship was found between parentification and relational ethics (r = −.224, p < .01). Attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance showed moderate negative correlations with relational ethics (r = −.594 and r = −.390, respectively, p < .01), supporting the need to control for attachment-related variables in the analyses (Becker, 2005). “Parental Infidelity Experience” was coded as a dummy variable (0 = No, 1 = Yes). Correlations between this variable and the continuous variables represent point-biserial correlation coefficients, which should be interpreted as indicators of the magnitude of mean differences between the two categories of the dummy variable (Cohen et al., 2003). A significant positive relationship was found between parental infidelity experience and parentification (r = .389, p < .01), indicating that individuals who reported parental infidelity exhibited higher levels of parentification.

This study examined the moderating effect of parental infidelity experience on the relationship between parentification and relational ethics. The moderating role of parental infidelity experience in the relationship between parentification and relational ethics was tested using PROCESS Macro Model 1. Attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety were included in the analysis as control variables (covariates). The results of the moderation analysis are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

PROCESS Model 1 Moderation Analysis Results.

Variables	Regression Coefficient (β)	Standart Error	t Value	p Value	LLCI	ULCI
Constant	4.6034	0.0460	100.17	.00	4.5128	4.6940
Parentification (X)	−0.0224	0.0558	−0.40	.689	−0.1324	0.0876
Parental infidelity experience (W)	0.2547	0.1164	2.19	.030*	0.0254	0.4841
X*W interaction	−0.2879	0.1282	−2.24	.026*	−0.5406	−0.0352
Attachment avoidance	−0.0869	0.0450	−1.93	.055	−0.1756	0.0019
Attachment anxiety	−0.3489	0.0423	−8.24	.00**	−0.4324	−0.2655
Model summary	R²=. 3825, F(5,224) = 27.75, p = .00**

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, LLCI/ULCI = 95% confidence interval. LLCI = lower-level confidence interval; ULCI = upper-level confidence interval.

As shown in Table 2, the overall model was statistically significant (F(5, 224) = 27.75, p < .001) and explained 38.25% of the total variance in relational ethics (R² = .382). The main effect of parentification, the independent variable, on relational ethics was not statistically significant (β = −0.022, SE = 0.056, t = −0.40, p = .689). However, parental infidelity experience was found to have a direct and statistically significant effect on relational ethics (β = 0.255, SE = 0.116, t = 2.19, p = .030). Moreover, the interaction term representing the moderating effect of parental infidelity experience on the relationship between parentification and relational ethics was also found to be statistically significant (β = −0.288, SE = 0.128, t = −2.24, p = .026). The inclusion of the interaction term in the model resulted in a statistically significant 1.4% increase in explained variance (ΔR² = 0.0139, F(1, 224) = 5.04, p = .026). These findings indicate that the effect of parentification on relational ethics varies depending on the presence of parental infidelity experience.

As also presented in Table 2, the contributions of the control variables to the model were examined. Attachment anxiety showed a strong and statistically significant negative association with relational ethics (β = −0.349, SE = 0.042, t = −8.24, p < .001). However, attachment avoidance was not significantly associated with relational ethics (β = −0.087, SE = .045, t = −1.93, p = .055).

The conditional effects of parentification on relational ethics at different levels of the moderating variable are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

The Moderating Effect of Parental Infidelity.

Moderator Variable	Effect (β)	Standart Error	t Value	p Value	LLCI	ULCI
No parental infidelity experience	−0.0224	0.0558	−0.40	.689	−0.1324	0.0876
Parental infidelity experience present	−0.3103	0.1157	−2.68	.008**	−0.5383	−0.0822

Note. **p < .01, LLCI/ULCI = 95% confidence interval. LLCI = lower-level confidence interval; ULCI = upper-level confidence interval.

As shown in Table 3, parentification does not have a significant effect on relational ethics among individuals who did not report parental infidelity (β = −0.022, SE = 0.056, t = −0.40, p = .689; 95% CI [−0.132, 0.088]). In contrast, among individuals who reported parental infidelity, the relationship between parentification and relational ethics is negative and statistically significant (β = −0.310, SE = 0.116, t = −2.68, p = .008; 95% CI [−0.538, −0.082]). This finding indicates that higher levels of parentification are associated with lower relational ethics scores among individuals who experienced parental infidelity.

The slope graph illustrating the moderating effect of parental infidelity experience on the relationship between parentification and relational ethics is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

The moderating effect of parental infidelity on the relationship between parentification and relational ethics.

Figure 2 illustrates the conditional effects of parentification on relational ethics depending on the presence or absence of parental infidelity. In the absence of parental infidelity, increases in parentification are not associated with statistically significant changes in relational ethics scores, and the slope of the relationship remains relatively flat. However, when parental infidelity is present, higher levels of parentification are associated with a statistically significant decrease in relational ethics scores.

Discussion

In the present study, the moderating role of parental infidelity experience in the relationship between parentification and relational ethics was examined in a sample consisting only of women, while controlling for attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. The findings indicate that, among women, the effect of parentification on relational ethics varies depending on the presence of parental infidelity between parents. In other words, parental infidelity experience has a moderating effect on the relationship between parentification and relational ethics. An examination of this moderating effect revealed that relational ethics scores decreased among women who experienced both parentification and parental infidelity, whereas no significant differences in relational ethics scores were observed among parentified women who did not report parental infidelity experience. Regarding the control variables included in the model, attachment anxiety was found to have a strong and significant negative association with relational ethics, whereas attachment avoidance was not significantly related to relational ethics. Put differently, individuals with higher levels of attachment anxiety are more likely to interpret relational reciprocity and fairness through the lens of their attachment style. However, such perceptions do not appear to be significantly influenced by attachment avoidance.

Although no study in the existing literature has simultaneously examined parentification, relational ethics, and parental infidelity, findings from the limited number of related studies appear to be consistent with the results of the present study. Previous research has indicated that experiences of parentification are more prevalent among women than men (Burnett et al., 2006; Garber, 2011; Lang, 2016). This gender difference is thought to stem from women's greater sensitivity to, or heightened awareness of, adverse family dynamics (Burnett et al., 2006). In addition, gender role socialization may also offer an explanatory framework for this difference. From this perspective, caregiving and responsibility-taking behaviors are more socially accepted, reinforced, and rewarded for women, which may help explain the higher prevalence of parentification experiences among women (Lang, 2016). Studies in the literature further indicate that women's experiences of parentification can have detrimental effects on their romantic relationships. Specifically, research has shown that childhood parentification is associated with increased compulsive caregiving behaviors in women's adult romantic relationships -such as excessively meeting a partner's physical and emotional needs, feeling responsible for the partner's well-being, and neglecting one's own needs in the relationship- and with higher levels of unconstructive communication patterns (Bourassa, 2010; Madden & Shaffer, 2016). Similarly, Baggett (2010) reported that forms of boundary dissolution, such as parentification, role reversal, and the adoption of spousal or adult-like roles, were associated with lower relationship satisfaction and reduced trust in one's partner or relationship, even after controlling for parenting styles and attachment styles.

In another study, paternal parentification experiences among women were examined, and it was found that women who had experienced paternal parentification reported difficulties engaging in healthy communication patterns in their romantic relationships and also exhibited lower levels of relationship satisfaction. These findings suggest that parentified individuals may develop dysfunctional beliefs and perceptions that their worth depends on living solely to meet others’ needs and serving others’ goals. In line with this belief, such individuals are described as taking on excessive responsibility and perceiving themselves as exclusively responsible for the happiness of those around them (Baggett et al., 2015). Similarly, other studies in the literature indicate that parentified individuals tend to be overly functional and to engage in heightened caregiving behaviors in adulthood as a way of establishing intimacy. These individuals are often reported to sacrifice their own developmental needs and instead adopt caregiving, responsibility-bearing, and regulatory roles within close relationships (West & Keller, 1991; Valleau et al., 1995).

The finding that parentification alone did not have a weakening effect on relational ethics may be explained by studies suggesting that parental appreciation and the perception of caregiving roles as fair, meaningful, or beneficial can mitigate the negative psychological impact of parentification (Jurkovic et al., 2001; Köyden & Uluç, 2018). Indeed, in a qualitative study examining parentification in a sample consisted predominantly of women, participants stated that parentification contributed to their psychological maturation, enhanced their emotional awareness, and even contributed to their professional lives (Yola Çetin et al., 2023). Similarly, some researchers proposed that parentification can support psychological resilience and identity development by enabling individuals to adopt multiple different perspectives, gain empathy and self-confidence, and strengthen coping skills (Jurkovic, 1997; Köyden & Uluç, 2018). In particular, in collectivistic Asian cultures where respect for elders and parental authority is culturally valued, parentification may yield more positive outcomes (Yew et al., 2017). Accordingly, considering that the sample of the current study was drawn from Türkiye, which is often characterized as a collectivistic culture, the present findings are consistent with the existing literature. However, the finding that parental infidelity played a moderating role in the relationship between parentification and relational ethics in the proposed model suggests that experiencing parentification alongside an experience that threatens family relationships, such as parental infidelity, may lead to more detrimental outcomes regarding ethical values in romantic relationships, including responsibility, reciprocity, and loyalty. Previous research suggesting that parental infidelity can disrupt children's perceptions of marital relationships and contribute to trust-related problems in their own intimate relationships supports this finding (Lusterman, 2005; Nogales & Bellotti, 2009).

Studies examining the relationship between parental infidelity experience and relational ethics indicate that individuals who have experienced parental infidelity report lower levels of vertical relational ethics scores, and there is a negative relationship between parental infidelity and vertical relational ethics (Schmidt et al., 2016). In another study conducted with a predominantly female sample focusing on horizontal relational ethics, a significant association was found between fathers’ infidelity and lower levels of horizontal relational ethics, whereas the relationship between mothers’ infidelity and participants’ horizontal relational ethics was not significant (Schmidt et al., 2016). Taken together, these findings suggest that experiences of parental infidelity may negatively affect individuals’ perceptions of relational ethics. In this respect, the current research findings appear to be generally consistent with the literature.

The current study found that parental infidelity plays a moderating role in the relationship between parentification and relational ethics among female participants. This finding suggests that parentification may have a detrimental effect on relational ethics, particularly when it is accompanied by experiences that undermine relational trust, such as parental infidelity. For parentified women, the addition of a parental infidelity experience to an already blurred relational structure characterized by role confusion and boundary dissolution within the parent–child relationship may further influence how they perceive and approach intimate relationships. In this context, such experiences may contribute to difficulties in terms of loyalty, reciprocity, compassion, and responsibility within their own romantic relationships.

Additionally, the finding that attachment anxiety, one of the control variables in the study, was strongly and negatively associated with relational ethics is consistent with the literature. Although not examined separately as attachment anxiety and avoidance, Adkins (2010) found that insecure attachment styles were negatively related to relational ethics. In his study, Altınok (2022) concluded that attachment anxiety significantly and negatively predicted relational ethics, whereas attachment avoidance did not significantly predict relational ethics. Another study (Madden & Shaffer, 2016) similarly found that attachment anxiety played a mediating role in the relationship between emotional parentification and communication patterns in romantic relationships, whereas attachment avoidance did not exert a significant indirect effect on this association. Overall, the findings of the present study are in line with the existing literature. Attachment anxiety, characterized by constant concerns about a partner's responsiveness and availability, fears of abandonment, and a search for intense emotional closeness (Sakman, 2021), may lead to a greater emphasis on giving within the reciprocity dimension of relational ethics, thereby negatively affecting relational ethics scores. Likewise, parentified individuals may develop a dysfunctional belief that they can be valued only by living for others and serving others’ needs, which may further intensify the giving dimension of reciprocity in their relationships (Baggett et al., 2015).

Given that the present study was conducted with women, gender role socialization and the collectivistic cultural context of the study setting may help explain the observed negative association between attachment anxiety and relational ethics. In contrast, individuals with attachment avoidance, who tend to avoid intimacy, struggle to trust their partners, maintain emotional distance, and fear commitment (Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Simpson, 1990), may show limited effort or awareness regarding relational ethics.

Conclusion and Implications

In the present study, when attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance variables were controlled, the moderating role of parental infidelity in the relationship between parentification and relational ethics was examined in a female-only sample. It was found that, among women, the effect of parentification on relational ethics varied depending on the presence of parental infidelity experience. It was concluded that the women who experienced both parentification and parental infidelity had lower levels of relational ethics. Additionally, attachment anxiety, included as a control variable, showed a strong and significant negative relationship with relational ethics, whereas attachment avoidance showed no significant relationship.

This study was conducted within the context of a relatively collectivist Turkish culture, with a sample consisting exclusively of women, and relied on self-report measures. Accordingly, the findings should be interpreted within these contextual boundaries.

Based on these results and limitations, the following recommendations can be made :

Implications for Marriage and Family Counselors

Given the impact of parentification, insecure attachment styles, and parental infidelity on relational ethics, future efforts should prioritize the broader implementation of premarital and couple counseling interventions.

In clinical work with couples struggling with issues related to relational ethics, counselors may benefit from more carefully assessing experiences of parentification, parental infidelity, and attachment styles as these family-of-origin dynamics may meaningfully shape patterns of reciprocity, responsibility, trust, and caregiving within intimate relationships.

Implications for Researchers

Given that the current study was conducted exclusively with women, future research should replicate the model with male samples. This would allow for an examination of potential gender differences, as the experience and manifestation of attachment styles, parentification, parental infidelity, and relational ethics may vary between genders.

The proposed model should be tested in individualistic cultural contexts to explore how cultural norms and values may shape the relationships among these variables.

Relational ethics should be examined in greater depth using qualitative research designs.

Future studies should focus on relational ethics specifically within horizontal relational contexts, such as peer and romantic relationships.

Although parental infidelity, attachment anxiety, and attachment avoidance were conceptualized as risk factors in the present study, future research should explore potential protective factors in the relationship between parentification and relational ethics.

Future studies may incorporate detailed information regarding which parent (mother, father, or both) engaged in infidelity into the analyses, as this variable may function as a moderator contributing to the relationship between parentification and attachment styles and, in turn, leading to lower levels of relational ethics.

Given the limitations of existing measurement tools related to parentification, future studies are suggested to develop and validate new scales assessing parentification.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all participants for their voluntary participation in this study and Dr. Ahmet Altınok for his methodological guidance regarding statistical analysis procedures.

ORCID iDs

Ahu Arıcıoğlu

Turnel Altan

Ece Aydın

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Pamukkale University Social and Human Sciences Research and Publication Ethics Committee, Türkiye (dated 23 July 2025; Approval No.: 68282350/2025/11).

Consent to Participate

Informed consent to participate in the study was obtained electronically from all participants prior to data collection.

Author Contributions

Ahu Arıcıoğlu conceptualized the study, contributed to the interpertation of the findings, and provided overall supervision throughout all stages of the research process.

Turnel Altan contributed to the study design, literature review, and writing of portions of the introduction and drafted the discussion and conclusion sections, as well as contributing to the interpretation of the findings.

Ece Aydın conducted the literature review, performed the statistical analyses, and drafted the manuscript including the introduction, methods, and results sections.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to confidentiality considerations but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Ablow

J. C.

Measelle

J. R.

Cowan

P. A.

Cowan

C. P.

(2009). Linking marital conflict and children’s adjustment: The role of young children’s perceptions. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(4), 485–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015894

Adkins

K. S.

(2010). A contextual family therapy theory explanation for intimate partner violence (Doctoral dissertation). https://repositorio.flacsoandes.edu.ec/bitstream/10469/2461/4/TFLACSO2010ZVNB A.pdf.

Akkan

(2023). Toplumsal yeniden üretim kuramı ve kız çocuklarının ev içi bakım emeği [social reproduction theory and girls’ domestic care labor]. Mülkiye Dergisi, 47(1), 118–139. https://doi.org/10.25064/mulkiye.1197313

Altınok

(2022). Bağlanma stilleri, cinsiyetçilik ve benliğin ayrımlaşmasının ilişki etiği üzerindeki yordayıcı etkisinde mizacın düzenleyici rolü [The moderating role of temperament in the predictive effect of attachment styles, sexism, and differentiation of self on relational ethics] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hacettepe University.

Baggett

Shaffer

Muetzelfeld

(2015). Father–daughter parentification and young adult romantic relationships among college women. Journal of Family Issues, 36(6), 760–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X13499759

Baggett

E. A.

(2010). Familial predictors of young adult romantic relationship functioning: A closer look at boundary dissolution [Unpublished undergraduate thesis]. University of Georgia.

Becker

T. E.

(2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105278021

Boszormenyi-Nagy

Krasner

(1986). Between give and take: A clinical guide to contextual therapy. Brunner/Mazel.

Bourassa

(2010). Compulsive caregiving: Emotional parentification in childhood and its association with romantic relationships in late adolescence and early adulthood [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Virginia.

10.

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.

11.

Burnett

Jones

R. A.

Bliwise

N. G.

Ross

L. T.

(2006). Family unpredictability, parental alcoholism, and the development of parentification. American Journal of Family Therapy, 34(3), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180600550437

12.

Büyüköztürk

(2005). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum [Handbook of data analysis for social sciences: Statistics, research design, SPSS applications, and interpretation]. Pegem Akademi.

13.

Can

(2017). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi [Quantitative data analysis in the scientific research process using SPSS]. Pegem Akademi.

14.

Chase

N. D.

(1999). Parentification: An overview of theory, research, and societal issues. In Chase

N. D.

(Ed.), Burdened children: Theory, research, and treatment of parentification (pp. 3–33). Sage Publications.

15.

Christie

D. J.

(2006). Post–Cold War peace psychology: More differentiated, contextualized, and systemic. Journal of Social Issues, 62(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00436.x

16.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

17.

Daneshpour

(2025). Couples therapy and the challenges of building trust, fairness, and justice. Family Process, 64(1), e13072. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.13072

18.

Daneshpour

Ducommun-Nagy

(2025). Introduction to the special section on contextual therapy. Family Process, 64(2), e70039. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.70039

19.

Dean

C. J.

(2011). Psychoeducation: A first step to understanding infidelity-related systemic trauma and grieving. The Family Journal, 19(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480710387487

20.

Dökmen

Z. Y.

(2004). Toplumsal cinsiyet: Sosyal psikolojik açıklamalar [Gender: Social psychological explanations]. Sistem Yayıncılık.

21.

Ducommun-Nagy

(2002). Contextual therapy. In Massey

R. F.

Massey

S. D.

(Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychotherapy (Vol. 3, pp. 463–488). Wiley.

22.

Eagly

A. H.

(2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64(8), 644–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.644

23.

East

P. L.

(2010). Children’s Provision of Family Caregiving: Benefit or Burden? Child Development Perspectives, 4(1), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00118.x

24.

Fish

L. S.

(2000). Hierarchical relationship development: Parents and children. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26(4), 501–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2000.tb00319.x

25.

Fishbane

M. D.

(2023). Couple relational ethics: From theory to lived practice. Family Process, 62(2), 446–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12861

26.

Fraley

R. C.

Shaver

P. R.

(2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4(2), 132–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.4.2.132

27.

Fraley

R. C.

Waller

N. G.

Brennan

K. A.

(2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365. https:///doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350

28.

Garber

B. D.

(2011). Parental alienation and the dynamics of the enmeshed parent–child dyad: Adultification, parentification, and infantilization. Family Court Review, 49(2), 322–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2011.01374.x

29.

Gilligan

(1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.

30.

Goldner

Abir

Sachar

S. C.

(2016). How do I look? Parent–adolescent psychological boundary dissolution and adolescents’ true-self behavior as manifested in their self-drawings. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 47, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2015.09.004

31.

Goldner

Jakobi

C. D.

Schorr

Dakak

Shawahne

(2022). Keep it quiet: Mother–daughter parentification and difficulties in separation–individuation shaping daughters’ authentic/true self and self-silencing: A mediation model. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 39(2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/pap0000352

32.

Hargrave

T. D.

Pfitzer

(2004). The new contextual therapy: Guiding the power of give and take. Brunner/Routledge.

33.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

34.

Hooper

L. M.

(2007). The application of attachment theory and family systems theory to the phenomena of parentification. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 15(3), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480707301290

35.

Hooper

L. M.

(2008). Defining and understanding parentification: Implications for all counselors. The Alabama Counseling Association Journal, 34(1), 35–43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281905738_Defining_and_Understanding_Parentification_Implications_for_All_Counselors

36.

Jacobvitz

D. B.

Bush

N. F.

(1996). Reconstructions of family relationships: Parent–child alliances, personal distress, and self-esteem. Developmental Psychology, 32(4), 732–743. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.4.732

37.

Jurkovic

G. J.

(1997). Lost childhoods: The plight of the parentified child. Brunner/Mazel.

38.

Jurkovic

G. J.

Jessee

E. H.

Goglia

L. R.

(1991). Treatment of parental children and their families: Conceptual and technical issues. American Journal of Family Therapy, 19(4), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926189108250862

39.

Jurkovic

G. J.

Thirkield

Morrell

(2001). Parentification of adult children of divorce: A multidimensional analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(2), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010349925974

40.

Kalaycı

(2009). Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri [Applied multivariate statistical techniques]. Asil Yayıncılık.

41.

Karagöbek

A. B.

(2014). The effect of maternal parentification history, maternal attachment styles, socioeconomic status and children’s self-construals on parentification roles and perceived parental caregiving [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Middle East Technical University.

42.

Karasar

(2002). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler [Scientific research methods: Concepts, principles, techniques]. Nobel.

43.

Köyden

Uluç

(2018). Ebeveynleşme ile psikolojik belirtiler arasındaki ilişkide cinsiyetin ve ebeveynleşmeden algılanan yararın rolü [The role of gender and perceived benefit from parentification in the relationship between parentification and psychological symptoms]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 33(81), 28–40. https://library.dogus.edu.tr/mvt/pdf.php?pdf=0024363&lng=0

44.

Lang

(2016). Perceived childhood emotional parentification is associated with machiavellianism in men but not in women. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 47(1), 136–140. https://doi.org/10.1515/ppb-2016-0015

45.

Love

Robinson

(1990). The emotional incest syndrome: What to do when a parent's love rules your life. Bantam Books.

46.

Lusterman

D. D.

(2005). Helping children and adults cope with parental infidelity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(11), 1439–1451. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20193

47.

Lutman

(2019). The complex dynamics of childhood parentification: An overview of theory and research. In Families: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 157–194). Ignatianum University Press. https://doi.org/10.15633/9788374388344.10

48.

Macfie

McElwain

N. L.

Houts

R. M.

Cox

M. J.

(2005). Intergenerational transmission of role reversal between parent and child: Dyadic and family systems internal working models. Attachment & Human Development, 7(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730500039663

49.

Madden

A. R.

Shaffer

(2016). The relation between parentification and dating communication: The role of romantic attachment-related cognitions. The Family Journal, 24(3), 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480716648682

50.

McMahon

T. J.

Luthar

S. S.

(2007). Defining characteristics and potential consequences of caretaking burden among children living in urban poverty. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(2), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.77.2.267

51.

Miller

L. D.

(2016). Seeking the hiding: Working through parental infidelity. Clinical Social Work Journal, 44(3), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-015-0566-0

52.

Minuchin

(1988). Relationships within the family: A systems perspective on development. In Hinde

R. A.

Stevenson-Hinde

(Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 7–26). Clarendon Press.

53.

Negash

Morgan

M. L.

(2016). A family affair: Examining the impact of parental infidelity on children using a structural family therapy framework. Contemporary Family Therapy, 38(2), 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-015-9364-4

54.

Nogales

Bellotti

(2009). Parents who cheat: How children and adults are affected when their parents are unfaithful. Health Communications.

55.

Önder

(2019). Romantik kıskançlık, aldatmaya yönelik niyet ve mutluluk [Romantic jealousy, intention toward infidelity, and happiness] [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Near East University.

56.

Peris

T. S.

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Cummings

E. M.

Emery

R. E.

(2008). Marital conflict and support seeking by parents in adolescence: Empirical support for the parentification construct. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(4), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012792

57.

Sakman

(2021). Yakın ilişkilerde örtük süreçler: Örtük partner tutumları ve ilişki çıktıları [Implicit processes in close relationships: Implicit partner attitudes and relationship outcomes]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 24(48), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.31828/tpy1301996120210108m000033

58.

Schade

L. C.

Sandberg

J. G.

(2012). Healing the attachment injury of marital infidelity using emotionally focused couples therapy: A case illustration. American Journal of Family Therapy, 40(5), 434–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2011.631374

59.

Schmidt

A. E.

Green

M. S.

Prouty

A. M.

(2016). Effects of parental infidelity and interparental conflict on relational ethics between adult children and parents: A contextual perspective. Journal of Family Therapy, 38(3), 386–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12091

60.

Selçuk

Günaydın

Sümer

Uysal

(2005). Yetişkin bağlanma boyutları için yeni bir ölçüm: Yakın ilişkilerde yaşantılar envanteri-II’nin türk örnekleminde psikometrik açıdan değerlendirilmesi [A new measure for adult attachment dimensions: Psychometric evaluation of the experiences in close relationships–II in a turkish sample]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 8(16), 1–11. https://toad.halileksi.net/olcek/yakin-iliskilerde-yasantilar-envanteri-ii/

61.

Sevi

Urganci

Sakman

(2020). Who cheats? An examination of light and dark personality traits as predictors of infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 164, Article 110126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110126

62.

Simpson

J. A.

(1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 971–980. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.971

63.

Snyder

D. K.

Baucom

D. H.

Gordon

K. C.

(2008). Treating infidelity: An integrative approach to resolving trauma and promoting forgiveness. Family Therapy Magazine, 7(1), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480708323205

64.

Thorson

A. R.

(2020). Triangulation and parental infidelity: Faithful parents’ attempts to make their adult children feel caught, rumination, and satisfaction in the unfaithful parent–child relationship. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 62(5), 327–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2020.1833293

65.

Valleau

M. P.

Bergner

R. M.

Horton

C. B.

(1995). Parentification and caretaker syndrome: An empirical investigation. Family Therapy, 22(3), 157–164. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232447188_Parentification_and_caretaker_syndrome_An_empirical_investigation

66.

van der Meiden

Noordegraaf

van Ewijk

(2019). How is contextual therapy applied today? An analysis of the practice of current contextual therapists. Contemporary Family Therapy, 41, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-018-9467-9

67.

West

M. L.

Keller

A. E.

(1991). Parentification of the child: A case study of Bowlby’s compulsive care-giving attachment pattern. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 45(3), 425–431. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1991.45.3.425

68.

Yew

W. P.

Siau

C. S.

Kwong

S. F.

(2017). Parentification and resilience among students with clinical and nonclinical aspirations: A cross-sectional quantitative study. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 45(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmcd.12063

69.

Yola Çetin

Akçınar

Hoşceylan Türkün

(2023). Evli bireylerin çocukluktaki ebeveynleşme yaşantıları üzerine nitel bir araştırma [A qualitative study on childhood parentification experiences of married individuals]. Journal of Academic Social Science, 11(147), 408–446. https://doi.org/10.29228/ASOS.72818