P ARENTIFICATION

Examining the Construct of Childhood Parentification: An Empirical Investigation

© Kristen Williams

A thesis submitted to the

School of Graduate Studies

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

Psychology Department

Memorial University ofNewfoundland

July2010

St. John's Newfoundland

 -------------------------------

P ARENTIFICATION 11

Abstract

Parentification refers to an experience whereby children take on adult roles in childhood.

Two questionnaire-based studies designed to address two areas of parentification research

were conducted. To help explain the divergent psychological outcomes of parentification,

Study 1 tested internal locus of control as a moderator in the relationship between

parentification and outcome in a sample of undergraduate students (N = 99). Internal

locus of control moderated the relationship between parentification and depression,

suggesting that higher internal locus of control is related to lower levels of depression

following childhood parentification. To bring further delineation to the parentification

construct, Study 2 examined a number of theorized family functioning correlates of

parentification in samples of adolescent (N = 92) and adult participants (N = 80). Results

from Study 2 suggest that childhood parentification is often found in mutually

unsupportive family systems, where physical and emotional needs are unmet, and parents

demonstrate reduced care for their children. Findings from both studies bring further

understanding to the construct of childhood parentification.

PARENTIFICATION lll

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Dr. Sarah Francis, for her invaluable insight,

guidance and support in the writing of my thesis and throughout my master's degree. I

will be forever grateful for her kindness. I would also like to thank my committee

members, Dr. Brent Snook and Dr. Greg Harris, for thoughtfully taking time to provide

direction and helpful feedback throughout the writing process. I would like to thank my

fellow MIRIAM lab members for their friendship and moral support. A special thank you

to Megan Short, Robyn Baker and Jeanna Hall for assistance with data collection and

data entry. I would also like to thank my family, Wade, Carla, Dan and Grant, for having

unconditional love and unwavering confidence in me. Finally, a special thank you to a

dear friend, Valerie Noel, for her endless benevolence, generosity and support.

This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of

Canada.
 PARENTIFICATION IV

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................... .. ............................................... .. .............. ... III
LIST OF TABLES ........................... . ........................................... ... ............................ V
LIST OF APPENDICES ....................... .. . ........................... ...... ............ . ................... . .. VI
INTRODUCTION ................................. . ......................................... . ....... .. .................. 1
AN INTRODUCTION TO P ARENTLFICATION ... . .... . . . ... .. ... . . . . .. .. ..... .. . .... . ... . . . .... .. ... .. ... .. ... . . . .... .. . 3
Defining Parentijication ... ......... ... ...... ... ...... ......... ... ... ... ......... ..................... ............ .......... .. 3
THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS: THE BEGINN INGS . ... .. ......... .. ...... ... .. . . . .. .. . . ... .. . .. ... .. ... . .. . .. . .. .. 5
Parentification and Attachment Theory... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . ... ... ... ... ... . 7
P ARENTIFICATION AND FAMILY F UNCTION fNG . . . . . ... ... .. . .. ... . . . . ... .. ....... .. . . ... .. . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . . ... . 8
Enmeshment, Disengagement, and Cohesion ... ... ......... ...... ... ... ......... ... ......... ......... ... ... .... ..... ... 9
Parental Care and Autonomy ...... ... ... ... ...... ......... ......... ...... ... ... ......... ... ... ... ..................... ... 1 I
Parentijication and Neglect ...... ... ... ... ...... ...... ...... ........................ ...... ........................ ......... 12
THE O UTCOMES OF CHILDHOOD PARENTIFICATION .. . ..... .. ..... . . . . . . . . . .. ..... . . . ... .. . .. . . . .. .... . .... . ..... 13
Maladaptive Outcomes ... ...... ...... ... ... ... ...... ...... ............... ... ......... ... ...... ...... ...... ... ...... ... ...... 13
Adaptive Outcomes ... ...... ...... ... ... ... ...... ............ ...... ......... ... ... ... ... ......... ...... ......... ...... ........ 14
CONTROLPROCESSES ... .. . . ... . .. ... . . .. ... . .. ... ... .. .. .... .. ... . . .... .. . . . . . ... . . . . ..... ... .... ..... . ........ .. . . . 16
Locus of Control. .. . .. . .. . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . ... ... ... ... ... .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. 17
THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION .. . .. . ...... ... . . . .. ...... . ... . ........... . ..... . .... . ...... . . . ... . .. .... .... . ......... 20

STUDY 1. ................................................................................................................. 22
METHOD ................................................................................................................ 22
PART ICIPANTS .... ... ... .... . ...... ...... .... .. . ....... . .. .. . .. . .. . ..... . ... . ........... . ..... .. . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . ... ... . . 22
M EASURES .. . . . .... . . .. .. .. .......... .. .. . . .. . .. . . . ... .. ... .. . . ... . ............ . . . ... . .... . ... ... ... .. .... .. ... .. ... . .. 22
PROCEDURE . . .................. . .. .. .... . . . .... . . .. . . . .. ..... . . ... .... .. ...... . .. . .. . .. ... ... .. . ................. .. .... 25

RESULTS ........................................... . ...................................... . ..... ........................ 25

STUDY 2 .................................. . .......... . ................................ .. . ................................. 31
METHOD ............................................................................ . ............. .... .... .......... .... 31
PART ICIPANTS . .... . . . . . ... . .. .. . ...... . ... .. . ...... . . . .... . .. . . . .. . .. ... . .... ... ... .. ....... . . .. .. . ... .. .. . ..... . . . .. . 3 1
MEASURES . . . ... .... .. . .. .... .. . .. . . ... . . ....... . . . ... . .... .. ..... . .. . . . . .. ... ..... . ........ .. .. . . . . ..... .. . . . . . ... .. .. 3 2
PROCEDURE ........... .. .. . ....... . . .. . . .. ....... . ..... .. .. . ..... ...... . .. . ..... . ............. .. .. .. . . . .. . .... . .. .. . ... 38
RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 39
DISCUSSION ........................................ .. . .... .. .. .... . ............... ..................................... 58
THE O UTCOMES OF CHILDHOOD P ARENTIFICATION . ... . . . ...... . ............. . . .... . . .. .. . .. . .. ........... . . .... 59
DEFINING THE CONSTRUCT . .... . .. .. ..... . ..... .... . . . . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. ......... .. ..... . . ..... . .... .. .. . .... . .... . .. . . 61
LLMITATIONS ... .. .... . ... ... .. . .. . .. . ... . . .... . . .............. . ........ . . . .. .. .... . .. . ... ...... .. ... . ..... . ... . . .. . .... 71
FUTURE DIRECTIONS.............. .... . ... . .. .......... . .. . . ... .. ... . . . ... .... .. . . . . ... . . . .... .. . . . .. .... .. ... ... ... . 74
CONCLUS IONS... . .. ...... . .. .... .. . .. .. ... .. . .... . . . .. . . ... .. ..... . .... .. .. . . .... . ... .. . . . .. ... . ........ . ... . ...... . . . 77

REFERENCES ........ . ......................... . ...... . ...... . ................ ...... .. . . .... ......... ............... ... 79
PARENTIFICATION v
List of Tables

Table 1 Means and SD for Study Measures in Undergraduate Sample 25

Table 2 Correlations for Study Measures in Undergraduate Sample 26

Table 3 Study Measure Correlations for Participants Scoring Above 27

PQ Mean Score

Table 4 Regression Analysis Testing Internal Locus of Control as a 29

Moderator in Undergraduate Sample

Table 5 Means and SO for Study Measures in Adult and Adolescent 39

Samples

Table 6 Means and SO by Gender for Study Measures in Adult and 41

Adolescent Samples

Table 7 Internal Consistencies for Study Measures in Adult and 43

Adolescent Samples

Table 8 Means and SO for Filial Responsibility Scales Based on 45

Parental Drug/Alcohol Problems and Parental illness

Table 9 Means and SO for Filial Responsibility Scales Based on 48

Familial Position and Only Child Status

Table 10 Correlations for Study Measures in Adult Sample 51

Table 11 Correlations for Study Measures in Adolescent Sample 52

Table 12 Regression Analysis Testing Internal Locus of Control as a 56

Moderator in the Adolescent Sample
PARENTIFICATION Vl

List of Appendices

Appendix A Parentification Questionnaire 89

Appendix B Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory 92

Appendix C Weinberger Adjustment Inventory 94

Appendix D Undergraduate Demographic Form 99

Appendix E Undergraduate Informed Consent Form 101

Appendix F List of Measures Used in Study 2 102

Appendix G Filial Responsibility Scale Adult 103

Appendix H Filial Responsibility Scale Youth 106

Appendix I Depression Anxiety Stress Scale - 21 Item Version 108

Appendix J Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale _ 110

Appendix K Parental Bonding Instrument 113

Appendix L Family Functioning Scale 117

Appendix M Childhood Trauma Questionnaire 119

Appendix N Adolescent Demographic Form 121

Appendix 0 Adult Demographic Form 123

Appendix P Study Introduction Medical/Blood Clinic 125

Appendix Q Adult Informed Consent Form 126

Appendix R Adult Study Instructions 127

Appendix S Classroom Study Introduction 128

Appendix T Study Explanation for Parents/Guardians 129

Appendix U Informed Consent Form For Guardians 131

P ARENTIFICATION Vll

Appendix V Informed Assent for Students 133

Appendix W Adolescent Study Instructions 135

 PARENTIFICATION 1

Examining the Construct of Childhood Parentification: An Empirical Investigation

It is estimated that over 130,000 cases of childhood maltreatment are investigated

in Canada every year (Statistics Canada, 2001). Child neglect, a circumstance in which a

caregiver is not fulfilling needs related to a child's emotional, psychological, and physical

development, has been identified as the primary reason for child maltreatment

investigations (Statistics Canada, 2001). Parentification, a functional and or emotional

role reversal in which a child becomes responsible for a parent's emotional and or

behavioural needs, has been conceptualized as a specific form of child neglect (Hooper,

2007a). Incidence rates specific to childhood parentification have not yet been defined,

perhaps partly due to the fact that parentification can take many forms and exists under a

variety of circumstances. For example, a child experiencing parentification may care for

the physical needs of a sick parent at the expense of social time with friends, or may

become an emotional confidante and comfort to a troubled parent while having his or her

own fears and emotional needs unrecognized. Parentification has been operationalized to

exist on a continuum, with every child experiencing parentification to a lesser or greater

extent, depending on a variety oflife circumstances. However, according to Mika,

Bergner, and Baum (1987), the adult-child role reversal becomes problematic under

conditions where (a) the child is overburdened with responsibilities; (b) responsibilities

are beyond the child's developmental level; (c) the child's best interests are excessively

neglected; (d) the child is not legitimized in his or her role; and or (e) the parent assumes

a child-like role. When children become primary care givers in the family, it is

hypothesized that the need for attention, comfort, and guidance is surrendered, potentially
 PARENTIFICATION 2

leaving a long-lasting impact on psychosocial functioning and adjustment (Hooper,

2007a).

Many researchers have examined the impact of parentification on adjustment and

functioning in adulthood, reporting that both negative and positive effects can be

identified (Earley, & Cushway, 2002). Childhood parentification has been associated with

conditions of psychopathology and interpersonal difficulty, as well as desirable attributes

such as responsible behaviour and resourcefulness (Barnett, & Parker, 1998; Jurkovic,

1997). However, little empirical research has been conducted to examine variables that

may be related to the differential outcomes associated with parentification.

Discussions of parentification and related constructs appear in a wide range of

clinical descriptions and studies. Parentification, role reversal, generational boundary

dissolution, and filial responsibility are terms discussed in a variety of writing, ranging

from familial alcoholism and sexual abuse literatures, to identity development theories

and anthropological and sociological observations (Chase, 1999; Jurkovic, 1997;

Jurkovic, Kuperminc, Sarac, & Weisshaar, 2005). While the construct ofparentification

has been researched and discussed in a variety of research literatures over the last 40

years, few empirical studies have tested the relationship between parentification and

theoretically related constructs in an effort to link parentification to well established

psychological phenomena.

Despite the expansive literature referencing the phenomenon of parentification, a

review of the research literature identifies two key areas requiring further investigation

and study that will be the focus of the present investigation. Broadly the two areas are (1)

the divergent outcomes associated with childhood parentification, and (2) the definition
 PARENTIFICATION 3

and theoretical correlates of parentification. These two issues are examined in this paper

in two studies. Study 1 was designed to test how a psychological variable may affect the

relationship between parentification and its divergent outcomes. Study 2 consists of a

further elaboration on the findings of Study 1, as well as an empirical test of theoretically

related constructs in an effort to further validate and define the construct of

parentification, while placing it in the context of other well-established psychological

constructs.

An Introduction to Parentification

Defming parentification.

The experience of parentification has been divided into two sub-dimensions:

instrumental and emotional or expressive (Jurkovic, 1997). Instrumental parentification

involves caring for the physical needs of the parent and or family. Duties such as

preparing meals, handling financial concerns, and doing household chores would be

classified as instrumental parentification. Theorists suggest that instrumental

parentification is perhaps the least detrimental to the child (Hooper, 2007a). In large

families, a child performing parental responsibilities may relieve some tension from the

family system, while at the same time allowing the child to gain a sense of

accomplishment and contribution. However, when the contributions of the child go

unnoticed, are unsupported, or continue indefinitely, negative effects such as excessive

stress are likely to result (Jurkovic, 1997).

Emotional or expressive parentification requires that the child tend to the

emotional requirements of the parent, becoming a support and confidante in response to

the parent's needs. Acting as a peacemaker in times of conflict and listening to the adult' s
 PARENTIFICATION 4

personal problems and concerns would qualify as emotional parentification. It is

contended that emotional parentification suppresses the child's own needs and is

detrimental to the overall development of the child (Hooper, 2007a). Until recently,

research studies tended to examine the outcomes of parentification holistically, and did

not separate results based on instrumental and expressive parentification experiences.

However, Jurkovic and Thirkield (1999) developed the Filial Responsibility Scale (FRS),

a self-report instrument with subscales designed to separately assess instrumental and

expressive parentification. Since the development of the FRS, some studies have

examined instrumental and expressive parentification distinctly (e.g., Kelley, French,

Bountress, Keefe, & Schroeder et al., 2007). In the present paper, parentification is

examined both holistically and distinctly.

Few studies have examined family and child correlates ofparentification

empirically. Parentification has been found to occur most often when there is a

disruption in the family system due to parental incapacitation. Parental alcoholism,

substance abuse, psychopathology, and terminal illness have all been associated with risk

for parentification (Barnett, & Parker, 1998; Earley, & Cushway, 2002; Kelley, et al.,

2007; Stein, Riedel, & Rotheram-Borus, 1999). The phenomenon ofparentification has

thus been associated with "young carers", defined as those under the age of 18 who

provide primary care for a disabled or sick relative in the home (Aldridge, & Becker,

1993). Research indicates that parentification is more likely to occur in single parent

families, as there is often no other adult to fulfill the parental responsibilities neglected by

the incapacitated parent. As well, there is some research to indicate that the first-born

child has a greater risk for parentification than younger siblings. In a study on the
 P ARENTIFICATION 5

defining characteristics of parentification, the family structure of over 300 children living

in urban poverty was examined. Care-taking burden was found to be positively correlated

with both single-parent family status and status as the oldest or only child living at home

(McMahon & Luthar, 2007).

Studies examining parentification and child gender have produced mixed results.

A study of adolescent children of parents with AIDS found female gender to be a

significant predictor of parentification (Stein et al., 1999), whereas a study using a

community sample of adolescents reported a non-significant relationship between

parentification and child gender (Peris, Goeke-Morey, Cummings, & Emery, 2008). In a

1998 review, Barnett and Parker postulated that the divergent outcomes associated with

parentification may be related to a variety of factors including the age at which

parentification began, the duration of the experience, availability of other parenting input,

and why the situation occurred (e.g., parental physical disability compared to parental

substance abuse). Thus, in the present study, demographic and family situational

variables were queried to determine how such factors may relate to self-reported

parentification experiences.

Theoretical Underpinnings: The Beginnings

For over 40 years, researchers have been examining the construct of

parentification. Minuchin and colleagues (1967) first introduced the term "parental

child" while examining families living in urban poverty. Based largely on observation

and clinical work with 12 families from New York ghettos, Minuchin et al. discussed the

parental child. They defined parental children as those to whom authority was given by

parents to fulfill a role of executive control and guidance within the family. The
 PARENTIFICATION 6

researchers highlighted the adaptive functions of parent-child role reversals among large

families oflower socio-economic status. The concept of the parental child primarily

emphasized functional tasks performed in the interest of family welfare and survival,

including meal preparation and concern over finances. Minuchin and colleagues proposed

that the parental child role was not necessarily problematic as long as the child was

receiving adequate support and recognition and responsibilities did not exceed the child's

ability level (Minuchin, Montalvo, Guerney, Rosman, & Schumer, 1967).

Further observation of the parent-child role reversal led to theoretical work on

intergenerational reciprocity within family systems. The term "parentification" was first

introduced by Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark (1973) to describe a "ubiquitous and

important aspect of most human relationships" (p.151 ). Existing within a framework of

fundamental needs and obligations, parentification referred to an expectation within the

family system that the child would fulfill a parental role. According to Boszormenyi-

Nagy and Spark, balance was a key component in all relational systems. Within the

family structure, a system of symmetry was required. Although a child would ordinarily

repay his indebtedness to the family by caring for his own children, in circumstances of

parentification, the child was said to hold an obligation to the parent(s). The authors

maintained that parentification need not be pathological, such as when placed within the

framework of reciprocity and balance. According to Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark

( 1973 ), a degree of parentification was necessary for all children in order to foster

responsible adult role taking and enhance emotional growth. Whereas Minuchin et al. 's

discussions on the parental child focused primarily on the functional structure and burden

ofparentification, Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark's work examined both the functional

 P ARENTIFICATION 7

and emotional roles performed by the child, highlighting the invisible relations within the

child-parent dyad.

In a 1977 dissertation, Karpel incorporated the writings of both Minuchin and

Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark to discuss the potentially harmful effects of childhood

parentification. Karpel discussed parentification as a "failure of parenting" (p.55),

harmful to the child when the giving of physical and emotional resources was persistently

one-sided, from child to parent. Drawing from the case files of six families in therapy,

Karpel used the term "loyal object" to describe a child experiencing parentification

(p.164). The term was said to express both the loyalty that tied the child to the "exploitive

relationship", as well as the use of the child as an object by the parent (Karpel, 1977).

From the initial investigations of Karpel and others, research on the phenomenon of

parentification shifted somewhat from its theoretical underpinnings to its associated

effects and psychosocial outcomes.

Parentification and attachment theory.

. Parentification is commonly conceptualized within the framework of attachment

theory (Barnett, & Parker, 1998; Hooper, 2007a). Attachment theory centres on the

infant/child interaction with caregivers. According to attachment theory, interactions with

the caregiver during childhood may result in mental representations that shape an

individual's expectations, perceptions, and behaviours throughout life (Bowlby, 1969).

Inner representations of the self, the environment, and the caregiver, or attachment figure,

are termed internal "working models". Internal working models serve three purposes: (a)

to help one interpret the meaning of others' behaviour, (b) to help one make predictions

about others' future behaviour, and (c) to organize one' s own and others' responses. It is
 PARENTIFICATION 8

suggested that internal working models are the mechanisms by which childhood

experience is sustained into adulthood (Bowlby, 1969).

In a synthesis of attachment theory and parentification, Hooper (2007a) explained

the disruptive nature ofparentification on the child's attachment behaviours. In

circumstances ofparentification, the caregiver is generally unresponsive to the child's

needs. As a result, feelings of anxiety and distress are increased and frequently

experienced. The parent and the environment thus inhibit the child from developing a

secure base. This inhibition creates a specific internal working model for the child,

namely, that others are not available or cannot be trusted to respond or comfort in times

of distress. According to Hooper (2007a), in cases of extreme parentification, the child

may develop the internal working model that he or she is not worthy of comfort and

support. Although internal working models are said to remain relatively stable over the

life course, some researchers acknowledge that internal working models may become

modified over time. For instance, longitudinal research by Waters and colleagues (2000)

has demonstrated that an individual' s attachment style and internal working models can

be revised over the life course by new experiences (Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowell,

& Alhersheim, 2000). Thus, it was hypothesized by Hooper (2007a) that internal working

models may explain how parentified children can experience divergent outcomes in

adolescence and adulthood.

Parentification and Family Functioning

Parentification, as most often discussed in current research literature, outlines a

situation in which a child takes on developmentally inappropriate tasks and is

unsupported by the parent. Thus, the term role-reversal is also used to describe the
 ------- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - -

PARENTIFICATION 9

construct of parentification (Earley, & Cushway, 2002). Role reversal, within the

framework ofparentification, involves increased responsibility for the child and refers to

a child acting as a parent and or mate to their own parent. Parental role reversal could

include activities such as defending or nursing a parent, while mate role reversal could

involve acting as a confidant or decision maker for the parent (Earley, & Cushway,

2002). Role-reversal is closely tied to the concept of boundaries within family

relationships. According to family theorists, boundaries represent implicit and explicit

rules and expectations that direct relationships within the family. Family theorists

maintain that clear and defined boundaries are crucial for the healthy functioning of the

family and its members (e.g., Boszormenyi-Nagy & Spark 1973; Minuchin, 1974).

Enmeshment, disengagement, and cohesion.

The role-reversal associated with parentification involves undefined and blurred

boundaries within the family system. Parentification has thus been said to relate to family

enmeshment in which highly permeable boundaries exist within the family. Enmeshment

exists in circumstances where differentiation of the family system diffuses. Members of

the family become inappropriately and overly involved with each other, erecting rigid

boundaries against the outside world (Minuchin, 1974). In the enmeshed family, the

behaviour of one member affects all others and the stress of one member reverberates and

is experienced by others in the system. The lack of clearly defined generational

boundaries in the parentification experience is said to represent a lack of differentiation,

or enmeshment, of the family system (Chase, 1999). Contrasted with enmeshment is the

concept of the disengaged family in which overly rigid boundaries exist within the family

system, and members are uninvolved and unaffected by each other. It is postulated that
P ARENTIFICATION 10

adaptive or optimal family functioning lies in the mid-point between enmeshment and

disengagement (Minuchin, 1974). While theoretical ties have been drawn between

parentification and enmeshment, it is important to test these hypothesized relations

empirically.

Relevant to family differentiation is the concept of family cohesion. Family

cohesion describes the shared support, affection, and helpfulness among family members

(Moos, 1974). According to Cigoli and Scabini (2006), family cohesion describes the

strength of the family bond, while family enmeshment refers to a characteristic of the

family bond which reflects how boundaries are interpreted and maintained. In a 1996

study, Barber and Buehler examined reports of family enmeshment and family cohesion

in relation to psychological adjustment in a sample of adolescents. Using Bloom's (1985)

Family Functioning Scale, the researchers found differing effects for the two family

variables. Family enmeshment was positively associated with depression, anxiety, and

delinquency, while family cohesion was negatively associated with depression, anxiety,

delinquency, and aggression. Similar results were found for a sample of adolescents from

the United Kingdom, where enmeshment was found to be positively related to depression

and anxiety, while family cohesion was found to be negatively related to depression and

positively related to ratings of life satisfaction (Manzi, Vignoles, Regalia, & Scabini,

2006). Based on the element of shared support component in family cohesion, it is

reasonable to postulate that parentification would be associated with lower levels of

family cohesion. As cohesion has been found to be negatively correlated with

maladaptive outcomes, it is of interest to examine family cohesion in the context of

parentification and outcome.

PARENTIFICATION II

Parental care and autonomy.

Research indicates that parentification most often occurs in disorganized family

systems in which a parent requires some form of support or assistance (Barnett & Parker,

I998). The construct ofparentification is in essence defined by the care given from child

to parent. The child will take on an adult role, such as comforter or housekeeper, and

provide for the needs of the adult. When unilateral and persistent, the role reversal often

requires the child to forfeit his or her own needs for comfort and security (Chase, 1999).

Theoretically, a child experiencing a great degree ofparentification would be receiving

little care from the parent, while a child participating in little or no adult role tasks would

be receiving a high degree of care from the parent. To help further delineate the construct

of parentification, it is thus of interest to determine how parentification may relate to the

individual's perception of care received from the parent.

An additional variable of interest involves perceptions of autonomy versus control

in the family of origin. In an effort to further understand the parentification process, it is

of importance to determine the extent to which the individual who has experienced

persistent parentification perceives that he or she was made to feel independent and adult-

like. From a theoretical standpoint, the adult roles taken on by the parentified child may

objectively lead to increased independence and autonomy; however, this hypothesis has

not been examined from the subjective perspective of the individual who has experienced

parentification. Although a person may report experiences of adult care taking in

childhood, it is not known how the objective report relates to personal perceptions of

autonomy in childhood. Examining the relationship between parentification and

perceptions of parental control may help to illuminate whether, in general, reports of

PARENTIFICATION 12

parentification behaviours are correlated with subjective impressions ofbeing given

autonomy to engage in adult roles.

Parentification and neglect.

Long-term parentification may constitute a form of child neglect. When

consistently meeting the needs of a parent, the child's own needs often go unnoticed and

unmet. Child neglect has been sub-divided into physical and emotional components. In

the development of a measure designed to assess childhood neglect, Bernstein et al.

(2003) defined physical neglect as, "the failure of caretakers to provide for a child's basic

physical needs, including food, shelter, clothing, safety, and health care" (p.175).

Emotional neglect was then defined as, "the failure of caretakers to meet the child's basic

emotional and psychological needs, including love, belonging, nurturance, and support"

(p.17 5). Physical and emotional child neglect have been associated with a host of

negative effects and outcomes throughout the life-course. Social difficulties, depression,

delinquency, and lower cognitive capabilities are among some of the deleterious

correlates of child neglect (see Hildyard, & Wolfe, 2002 for a review). Although

theoretically linked, the relationship between perceptions of parentification and

perceptions of child neglect must be examined empirically. Researchers have discussed

parentification as a form of neglect (e.g., Hooper, 2007b); however, the uniqueness ofthe

parentification experience cannot be contained fully within the definition of neglect.

Parentification involves not only neglect from a parent, but also the additional

responsibility of performing adult roles. It has yet to be determined whether the

maladaptive outcomes associated with parentification are due to the parentification

experience itself, or to the child neglect that is a theoretical component of parentification.

P ARENTIFICATION 13

It is thus necessary to separate physical and emotional neglect from parentification.

Parentification must be differentiated from neglect to determine whether or not

parentification makes a unique contribution to outcome variables, above what is

accounted for by the construct of neglect. An examination of the relationship between

parentification and neglect will likely provide a greater understanding of the construct of

parentification.

The Outcomes of Childhood Parentification

Maladaptive outcomes.

The majority of research on childhood parentification has focused on outcomes

associated with the parentification experience. Historically, empirical investigations have

focused on negative effects and poor psychosocial adjustment in adolescence and

adulthood as a result of parentification (Hooper, 2007b). Psychological disturbances

including depression, anxiety, and increased substance use have been identified as

negative consequences of the parent-child role reversal in both adult and adolescent

populations (Jacobvitz & Bush, 1996; Stein et al., 1999). Recently, parentification was

examined in a community sample of 14 to 18 year old adolescents. It was determined that

parentification during childhood was associated with higher levels of youth-reported

internalizing, externalizing, and total behaviour problems as measured by the youth-

report version of the Child Behaviour Checklist (Peris et al., 2008). Childhood

parentification has also been associated with poor academic performance in post-

secondary education. One study involving 360 undergraduate students examined high

school grade point averages and Scholastic Aptitude Test scores in conjunction with a

measure of childhood parentification. Those with low scoring academic status, identified
- --------------- - -- -- - -- - - - -- - -- -- -- - ---------

P ARENTIFICATION 14

by membership in a developmental-studies academic program, were found to have

significantly higher childhood parentification scores than those in the regularly applied

academic program (Chase, Deming, & Wells, 1998). An additional study with

undergraduate students found a significant relationship between childhood parentification

and feelings of shame, and shame-proneness in early adulthood (Wells & Jones, 1996).

Research has also demonstrated a relationship between childhood parentification and the

impostor phenomenon, a construct defined by feelings of unworthiness and fraudulence

despite objective evidence of success in the form of achievement (Castro, Jones, &

Mirsalimi, 2004).

Adaptive outcomes.

Although the majority of parentification research has focused on negative

outcomes, there is increasing recognition that, in many circumstances, children who have

experienced a high level ofparentification can grow into high-functioning and well-

adjusted adults, potentially as a result of the increased instrumental and or emotional

resp~msibilities experienced in childhood. The ability to benefit in some way from

stressful environmental events, a construct that has been labelled post-traumatic growth,

has been examined in relation to parentification. In a 2007 study, instrumental and

emotional parentification were components in a model found to predict post-traumatic

growth in a sample of undergraduate students (Hooper, Marotta, & Lanthier, 2008).

Further research with children of parents with HIV demonstrated a positive statistical

relationship between parentification and child positive adjustment. In a sample of23 9-

through 16-year-old children from families affected by maternal HIV, parentified

children reported lower levels of depressive symptoms and higher social competence
PARENTIFICATION 15

when compared to a group of non-affected same age peers (Tompkins, 2007). Although

the study consisted of a small sample size, preliminary support was found for resilience in

the context of parentification.

A longitudinal study published in 2007 provides evidence that parentification may

be adaptive over the long-term. Over 200 children of parents with HIV/AIDS were

assessed for parentification and associated outcomes as adolescents and tested again six

years later. In the initial testing, parentified children were found to have increased

substance use and emotional distress. When re-assessed six years later, it was found that

parentification predicted adaptive coping skills and decreased alcohol and tobacco use in

the sample of young adults (Stein, Rotheram-Borus, & Lester, 2007). These results

suggest that while the responsibilities of parentification may produce negative outcomes

in the short-term, the experience may build coping skills and prove to be adaptive in the

long-term. To better acknowledge both maladaptive and adaptive outcomes associated

with childhood parentification, and to avoid pathological connotations associated with the

traditional term, some researchers have begun to replace parentification with the term

"filial responsibility" (Jurkovic et al., 2005).

While the divergent outcomes of parentification continue to emerge, few studies

have attempted to identify the variables that may be accounting for the differential effects

of parentification. In a study of Bosnian youths, Jurkovic and associates (2005) examined

the moderating role of perceived fairness in family relationships to the relationship

between parentification and outcome. Perceived fairness was found to moderate both the

relationship between parentification and academic grades and the relationship between

parentification and classroom behaviour. Perceived fairness of familial care taking roles
P ARENTIFICATION 16

was found to be associated with higher academic grades and better classroom behaviour

than perceived unfairness of roles, thus suggesting the importance of perceived fairness to

outcomes under circumstances of childhood parentification (Jurkovic et al., 2005).

Similarly, Kuperminc, Jurkovic and Casey (2009) demonstrated the moderating role of

perceived fairness in a sample of Latino adolescents from immigrant families. For those

who perceived fairness in family relationships, a high level of care giving was associated

with self-restraint. This relationship was not found for those who did not perceive family

relationships to be fair. Aside from perceived fairness, no other known psychological

variables have been examined for moderating effects on the divergent outcomes of

parentification.

An initial investigation into childhood parentification (presented below in Study

1) attempted to identify a moderating psychological variable potentially affecting the

relationship between parentification and outcome. Control processes, specifically internal

and external locus of control were examined. Circumstances of pro-longed and unilateral

parentification involve disorganized family systems in which the child takes on a

leadership role, and thus some form of control over family functioning. It was thus of

interest to examine how a characteristic perception of control and consequences, such as

locus of control, would relate to parentification experiences.

Control Processes

Control is conceptualized as a motivational variable. It allows individuals to

actively regulate, participate in, and direct events in their lives in ways that facilitate

independence and self-responsibility (Frazier, Newarnn, & Jaccard, 2007). Social

cognitive theory purports that individuals have self-reactive capabilities that allow them
PARENTIFICATION 17

to exert control over their thoughts, feelings, and actions (Bandura, 1991). Control is said

to have a reciprocal relationship with coping efforts, such that control may dictate coping

efforts, while the success or failure of coping efforts may enhance or reduce sense of

control (Frazier et al., 2007). Research has shown that ways in which children and

adolescents cope with psychosocial stress will influence future psychopathology and

adjustment (Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Harding-Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001).

Thus, it can be proposed that the relationship between adverse childhood events and later

outcome may depend to some extent on characteristic styles of control.

Locus of control.

Locus of control involves the extent to which individuals believe they can

influence events through their own actions (Rotter, 1966). The concept of locus of control
I

developed from social learning theory and is based on a desire to identify a variable that

could refine predictions on how reinforcements change expectancies (Rotter, 1975).

According to social learning theory, the potential for a behaviour to occur in a specific

psychological situation is a function of the expectancy that the behaviour will lead to a

specific reinforcement and the value of that reinforcement. When an organism perceives

two situations as similar, expectancies for reinforcement will then generalize from one

situation to another (Rotter, 1975). According to Rotter (1966), when reinforcement is

perceived by an individual as being followed by his or her action but not as contingent

upon the action, reinforcement is perceived as either being controlled by luck or chance,

or under the control of powerful others. When an event is interpreted in this way, it is

labelled as external control. However, when a person perceives that an

event/reinforcement is contingent on his or her own actions or characteristics, then the

PARENTIFICATION 18

belief is termed internal control. Social learning theory stipulates that when reinforcement

is perceived as contingent upon an individual's behaviour, expectancy of reinforcement

will increase to a greater extent than when reinforcement is seen as non-contingent.

Rotter (1966) hypothesized that based on history of reinforcement, individuals would

differ in the degree to which they attributed reinforcement to their own actions or to some

external force. Individuals who attribute outcomes of events to external forces are said to

have an external locus of control orientation, whereas those who attribute outcomes to

their own actions are said to have an internal locus of control orientation.

The locus of control construct encompasses the extent to which individuals feel

capable of exerting control over their own behaviours and cognitions. Thus, it is

reasonable to postulate that those who have a high internal locus of control orientation

may be differentially affected by stressful life events when compared to those who have a

strong external locus of control. Research on internal and external locus of control

supports this hypothesis. Studies with both adults and children have found that those with

an external locus of control tend to manifest internalizing behaviours, such as withdrawal,

passivity, depression, and anxiety (Rothbaum, Wolfer, & Visintainer, 1979; Rothbaum,

Weisz, & Snyder, 1982). Given that perceptions ofuncontrollability are linked with

external locus of control, it is reasonable that internalizing behaviours would be related to

external locus of control (Rothbaum, Wolfer, & Visintainer, 1979).

Several previous studies have examined internal and external locus of control

orientations in relation to psychopathology, finding that those with an internal locus of

control experience decreased depression and anxiety when compared to externals (e.g.

Burger, 1984; Nunn, 1988). Locus of control has also been found to moderate the
PARENTIFICATION 19

relationship between life stress and the outcome variables of depression and anxiety. In a

sample of undergraduate students, a significant correlation was found between negative

life changes and both depression and anxiety. However, this relationship was found only

for those with an external locus of control orientation, indicating that locus of control

serves as a moderating variable between life stress and psychopathology (Johnson &

Sarason, 1978). Conversely, research indicates that internal locus of control orientation is

associated with decreased depression and anxiety and better overall health outcomes.

In a 2008 longitudinal study, Gale, Batty and Deary examined the relationship

between self-rated locus of control in childhood and reported health outcomes in

adulthood. Data from over 7,000 individuals were collected both at age 10 and again at

age 30. Participants who reported an internal locus of control orientation in childhood

were found to have a reduced risk of poor self- rated health and psychological distress in

adulthood, leading the authors to conclude that internal locus of control may serve as a

protective factor for aspects of well being in adult life (Gale et al., 2008).

In the present investigation, locus of control was selected as a potential moderator

in the relationship between parentification and outcome both for its empirically

demonstrated role in positive psychological adjustment, as well as its unique relevance to

the construct of parentification. Children experiencing pro-longed parentification are

taking on a leadership function and arguably a position of control within a disrupted

family system. It is thus reasonable to propose that the characteristic perception ofhaving

control over one's own behaviour and associated consequences, known as internal locus

of control, may be associated with more positive outcomes following childhood

parentification.
P ARENTIFICATION 20

The Present Investigation

The present investigation extends past research by examining two areas of further

study. The first focus of investigation involves the differential outcomes associated with

childhood parentification. For some, the experience can produce growth and resiliency,

whereas for others, childhood parentification is associated with later maladaptive

outcomes such as psychopathology (Hooper, 2007b). While research demonstrates the

divergent psychosocial effects of parentification, only one psychological variable to date,

perceived fairness, has been identified as important to the relationship between early

parentification and later psychosocial outcomes. In an effort to address the lack of

research on moderating variables in the relationship between parentification and outcome,

the psychological variable locus of control was examined in relation to childhood

parentification and the outcomes of depression and anxiety. It was hypothesized that

internal locus of control would be found to moderate the relationship between

parentification and two associated maladaptive outcomes namely, depression and anxiety.

The second area of study involves the construct of parentification itself.

Parentification is a complex phenomenon, and while theoretical postulations and clinical

case studies have served as a useful guide for discussions of the construct, it is necessary

to examine the construct in relation to family functioning variables in a quantifiable

manner. Thus, a key objective of the present investigation was to provide a more concrete

understanding of the phenomenon of parentification. In addition to examining the

relationship between parentification and the outcomes of depression and anxiety, ratings

of childhood neglect, reports of family enmeshment and cohesion, and perceptions of

parental care and autonomy were examined in relation to childhood parentification. This
P ARENTIFICATION 21

was done in an effort to provide a more refined understanding of parentification. It was

hypothesized that (a) parentification would be positively correlated with enmeshment; (b)

parentification would be negatively correlated with family cohesion; (c) parentification

would be negatively correlated with perceptions of parental care; and (d) the objective

reports of adult role taking (parentification) would be positively correlated with

subjective ratings of autonomy. It was further hypothesized that parentification would

demonstrate a positive relationship with neglect, but would account for unique variance

when examining depression and anxiety in relation to parentification and neglect.

As some research indicates that the effects of parentification may operate

differently in adolescence and adulthood (Stein et al., 2007), both youth and adult

populations were employed in this research. To test the research questions, two separate

studies were conducted. In preparation for the large-scale community based study, the

construct of parentification was examined in a pilot study of undergraduate students,

labelled as Study 1. The purpose ofthe pilot study was two-fold. It was conducted both to

examine a range of potential moderators in an easily accessible population, and to

examine parentification in relation to a range of potential outcomes. Study 1 used an

undergraduate sample to evaluate internal locus of control as a potential moderator in the

relationship between parentification and depression. Study 2 involved both a community

sample of adults and a sample of high school students, and was designed to replicate and

build on the findings in Study 1. In addition to the Study 1 variables, family functioning,

parental bonding, neglect, and demographic information were examined to help

illuminate the construct of parentification.

PARENTIFICATION 22

Study 1

In Study 1, four hypotheses were tested. It was first hypothesized that

parentification would be positively correlated with a maladaptive psychological state,

namely depression, and negatively associated with a positive psychological state, in this

case, ratings of happiness. It was further hypothesized that internal locus of control would

be found to moderate the relationship between childhood parentification ratings and

current depression and happiness, such that parentification would be associated with

lower ratings of depression and higher ratings of happiness in individuals with higher

levels of internal locus of control, and associated with higher ratings of depression and

lower ratings of happiness in individuals with lower levels of internal locus of control.

Method

Participants

Ninety-nine undergraduate students from Memorial University served as the

participants in this study. Eighty-three (84%) participants were women. Participants

ranged in age from 18 to 48 years, with a mean age of23.76 (SD = 5.55). When

questioned regarding family of origin, 81% (n = 80) of the sample indicated that they had

come from a home where both parents lived together.

Measures

As part of a larger study, participants were administered a battery of six paper-

pencil self-report questionnaires, four of which are relevant to the present investigation.

All measures were randomized using a Latin Squares design.

Parentification Questionnaire (PQ; Sessions & Jurkovic, 1986). Parentification

was assessed using the Parentification Questionnaire (see Appendix A). Developed based
P ARENTIFICATION 23

on clinical observation, the 42-item, true-false self-report instrument is designed to assess

participant memories of taking care of parental responsibilities in childhood. Scores range

from 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating a greater degree of parentification. Although

there are no formal subscales, questions assess both emotional and instrumental forms of

parentification. A sample item such as, "I was frequently responsible for the physical care

of some members of my family i.e., washing, dressing, feeding etc." would assess

instrumental parentification, whereas the item, "at times I felt I was the only one my

mother/father could tum to" would query emotional parentification. Participants indicate

whether or not the statement was true of their childhood experience, with 17 of the 42

items being reversed scored.

Research indicates that the PQ demonstrates good psychometric properties.

According to Nunnally (1978), reliabilities of. 70 or higher are considered acceptable.

The creators of the PQ reported a coefficient alpha of .83 and split-half reliability of .85

in a non-clinical undergraduate sample (Sessions & Jurkovic, 1986), while a coefficient

alpha of .84 and split-half reliability of .94 was found in a clinical outpatient sample of

participants (Burnett, Jones, Bliwise & Ross, 2006). In a sample of undergraduate

students, test-retest reliability was reported to be .86 over a two-week period (Castro et

al., 2004). Studies suggest that the PQ can distinguish between those who were raised in

alcoholic and non-alcoholic homes (Chase et al., 1998).

The Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory (LMLCI;

Levenson, 1974). The LMLCI was used to assess locus of control (see Appendix B). The

24-item measure is rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6

(strongly agree). The self-report inventory consists of three, eight-item subscales

PARENTIFICATION 24

measuring internal locus of control ("my life is determined by my own actions"), external

locus of control influenced by chance ("to a great extent my life is controlled by

accidental happenings"), and external locus of control influenced by powerful others

("getting what I want requires pleasing those above me"). For the purposes of this study,

only the internal locus of control subscale was employed, and higher scores indicated a

higher level of internal locus of control. Acceptable internal consistency ratings for the

internal locus of control subscale have been found (Presson, Clark & Benassi, 1997).

The Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (WAI; Weinberger & Schwartz, 1990).

Outcome was assessed using the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (see Appendix C).

The W AI is a 62-item self-report assessment of long-term social and emotional

adjustment. Participants rate responses on 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (false) to 5

(true). The measure is composed of two primary dimensions: Distress and Restraint,

which are each defined by four distinct but interrelated subdimensions that serve as

subscales and reliable measures separately. For the purposes of this study, only the

depression and happiness subscales were employed. Both the depression (e.g., "I often

feel sad or unhappy") and happiness (e.g., "I enjoy most of the things I do during the

week") subscales contain seven items. The depression and happiness subscales of the

WAI demonstrate strong psychometric properties, with coefficient alpha ranging from .78

to .87 in clinical and non-clinical samples of young adults (Weinberger, 1997). Studies

have documented associations between WAI scores and factors such as psychopathology,

substance abuse, and delinquency (Kuperminc et al., 2009).

Demographic Information. All participants were administered a short

demographic questionnaire created by the researcher (see Appendix D). The form
 -- --- -------~~----------------------

PARENTIFICATION 25

assessed variables such as age and sex, and queried familial living arrangement while the

individual was living at home. Participants were asked briefly about parental illness and

alcoholism as well as the duration of the experience if applicable.

Procedure

Students were approached by the experimenter in undergraduate classes and

informed of the research study. The experimenter briefly explained the purpose and task

requirements of the experiment, highlighting the voluntary nature of participation.

Outside of class time, participants were tested in groups in a quiet room. After signing

informed consent documentation (see Appendix E), each individual received a

counterbalanced packet of self-report questionnaires. All responses were anonymous and

identified only with a research number. The packet of questionnaires took approximately

25 minutes to complete. Students were offered bonus course participation marks for their

involvement in the study.

Results

Means and standard deviations for the study measures are shown in Table 1 and

bivariate correlations are shown in Table 2. Consistent with the study hypotheses, a

correlation analysis found parentification scores to be positively correlated with

depression (r = .44, p < .01) and negatively correlated with happiness (r = -.25, p < .05)

scores. The negative correlation between parentification score and internal locus of

control was significant (r = -.26, p <.05).

Table 1

Means and standard deviations for the PQ, LMLCI-Internal Locus of Control subscale,

and the Depression and Happiness subscales of the WAI in the fu ll sample.
 - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -

PARENTIFICATION 26

Measure Mean (SD)

PQ 16.48 (7.13)

LMLCI-I 35.12 (6.53)

WAI-Depression 17.54 (6.53)

W AI-Happiness 21.16 (7.13)

Note. PQ = Parentification Questionnaire; LMLC/-1 = Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control

Inventory internal locus ofcontrol subscale; WAf = Weinberger Adjustment Inventory

Table 2

Bivariate correlations for the PQ, the LMLCI-Internal Locus of Control subscale, and the

Depression and Happiness subscales of the WAf in the full sample.

Measure PQ LMLCI-I W AI-Depression

LMLCI-I -.26*

WAI-Depression .44* -.32*

WAI-Happiness -.25* .52* -.58*

Note. PQ = Parentification Questionnaire; LMLC/-1 = Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control

Inventory internal locus ofcontrol subscale; WAf = Weinberger Adjustment Inventory

*p<.05

Parentification was examined in relation to participant reports of parental drug

and or alcohol abuse and participant reports of parental chronic, debilitating illness.

Those indicating that one or both of their parents had drug or alcohol problems while they

were living at home (n = 10) had significantly higher parentification scores than those

who did not (n = 86; t(94) = 3.42, p < .01 , d = 1.15). Similarly, those who indicated that

one or both of their parents had a chronic debilitating illness while they were living at
P ARENTIFICATION 27

home (n = 10) had significantly higher parentification scores than those who did not (n =

82; t(90) = 3.11,p < .01, d = 1.04).

Parentification is proposed to exist on a continuum, with all children experiencing

adult role taking to a greater or lesser extent. In an effort to examine participants with

greater and more persistent parentification, the sample was divided into two groups.

Comparisons were made between participants scoring above (n = 39) and below (n = 57)
the PQ mean score (Range 5-38, M = 16.48, SD = 7.13). A specific parentification score

has not been identified as a cut-off for normal versus extreme adult role taking. The mean

parentification score was selected as a dividing line to distinguish lesser from greater

parentification due to the small number of participants (n = 15) scoring greater than or

equal to one standard deviation above the mean, the upper-range on the parentification

measure. For those scoring above the mean parentification score, correlations between

internal locus of control and depression (r = -.48, p < .01), and internal locus of control

and happiness (r = .61,p < .01) were stronger than for those scoring below the mean

(depression r = -.16,p >.05; happiness r = .37, p < .01 , See Table 3).

Table 3

Bivariate correlations for the PQ, the LMLCI-Internal Locus of Control subscale, and the

Depression and Happiness subscales of the WA!for those scoring above and below the

PQ mean score.

Measure PQ LMLCI-I WAI- W AI-Happiness

Depression

PQ -.12 .33* -.14

PARENTIFICATION 28

LMLCI-1 -.04 -.48* .61*

WAI- .04 -.16 -.65*

Depression

W AI-Happiness .05 .37* -.52*

Note. Top halfofdiagonal Above Mean PQ (bold) = Participants scoring above the full sample mean

parentification score on the PQ; bottom halfBelow M ean PQ = Participants scoring below the full sample

mean parentification score on the PQ; PQ = Parentification Questionnaire; LMLCI-I = Levenson

Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory internal locus ofcontrol subsca/e; WAI = Weinberger

Adjustment Inventory

*p <.05

To test internal locus of control as a moderating variable in the relationship

between parentification and depression, a moderational analysis in the full sample was

conducted (See Table 4). Main effects in the regression analysis showed that both

parentification (B = .44, p <.01) entered in the first step and internal locus of control (B =

-.26, p < .01) entered in the second step were significant predictors of depression scores,

with higher parentification associated with higher depression scores, and higher internal

locus of control associated with lower depression scores. The regression equation with

both parentification and internal locus of control as predictors was also significant (F (2,

93) = 16.34, p < .01), with both variables together accounting for 26% of the variance in

depression scores. Additionally, the interaction of parentification and internal locus of

control was significant (/J = -1.40, t = -2.58, p < .01 ), suggesting that the interaction term

was accounting for an additional proportion of variance (F change (l , 92) = 6.64, p < .05;

R 2change = .05) beyond that accounted for by parentification alone.

 PARENTIFICATION 29

An additional moderational analysis was conducted to test internal locus of

control as a moderating variable in the relationship between parentification and happiness

scores. Again, both parentification (B = -.25,p = .01) entered in the first step and internal

locus of control (B = .4 7, p < .01) entered in the second step were significant predictors of

happiness scores, with higher parentification associated with lower happiness scores, and

internal locus of control associated with higher happiness scores. The regression equation

with both parentification and internal locus of control as predictors was also significant

(F(2, 93) = 17.0l , p < .01), with both variables together accounting for 51.8% ofthe

variance in happiness scores. The interaction of parentification and internal locus of

control was significant (,8 = 1.76, t = 3.32, p < .01), suggesting moderation (Fchange (1, 92)
2
= 11.02,p < .01; R change = .08).

Table 4

Hierarchical regression analyses testing internal locus ofcontrol as a moderator in the

relationship between parentification and depression and parentification and happiness in

the full sample

Predictor B J3 t R change Fchange p

Depression

Parentification .40 .44 4.80 .20 .20 23.07 .00

LMLCI-I -.26 -.26 -2.81 .26 .06 16.34 .00

Parentification x LMLCI-I -.04 -1.40 -2.58 .31 .05 6.64 .01

Happiness

Parentification -.12 -.25 -2.51 .06 .06 6.30 .02

 P ARENTIFICATION 30

LMLCI-I .24 .47 5.12 .27 .21 17.08 .00

Parentification x LMLCI-1 .02 1.76 3.32 .35 .08 11.02 .01

Note. LMLCI-1 = Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory internal locus ofcontrol

subsca/e

Analyses of the pilot data supported the study hypotheses. In the undergraduate

sample, retrospectively reported childhood parentification was associated with more

maladaptive psychological outcomes. Reports of past childhood parentification were

associated with adult ratings of depression, while increased childhood parentification was

associated with lower adult ratings of happiness. Additionally, internal locus of control

was found to moderate the relationship between past childhood parentification and

present psychological adjustment. This finding provides preliminary support for internal

locus of control as a protective factor following parentification experiences; however,

further investigation was required.

More specifically, Study 1 did not have the capacity to examine ratings of internal

locus of control at the time of the parentification experiences while the individ1Jal was

living in the home. To provide further support for internal locus of control as a protective

factor, this variable requires study at a time when the individual is coping with and

processing parentification experiences. To achieve this objective, parentification and

internal locus of control were next studied in a general sample of adolescents who

presumably would be currently living at home. Study 2 was designed to elaborate on the

findings of Study 1, as well as to examine parentification in relation to theoretically

hypothesized family functioning correlates.

 ------

PARENTIFICATION 31

Study 2

Study 2 consisted of both an elaboration and extension of Study 1. Based on the

results of the pilot investigation, the outcome measure was changed for this study. The

Weinberger Adjustment Inventory is a long and comprehensive assessment of many

domains of psychosocial functioning; however, as parentification was found to be

associated with maladjustment, and depression was a key variable associated with

parentification, depression was selected as a variable for further investigation.

Additionally, given the close relationship between depression and anxiety, a measure of

anxiety was also included as an outcome variable of interest (Mineka, Watson, & Clark,

1998). In consideration of participant time and energy, a shorter more precise measure of

depression and anxiety was selected. Study 2 sought to elaborate on the findings of Study

1 and bring further delineation to parentification through examining the construct in the

context of several family-relevant variables. Community, non-clinical samples were

tested in order to sample diverse childhood experiences and a broad range of

parentification scores.

Method

Participants

Study 2 consisted of two community samples. The first sample was comprised of

a group of 80 adults 19 years of age and older from St. John's and the surrounding area.

Participants ranged in age from 19 to 80 with a mean age of 40.41 (SD = 15.70). Of80

participants, 61% of the sample were women (n = 47) and 93% of the sample was

Caucasian (n = 66). When queried about martial status, 56% of the sample indicated they

were married (n = 40), 34% indicated they were single (n = 24), and 10% indicated they
 --------------------------------

PARENTIFICATION 32

were divorced or widowed (n = 7). Concerning highest level of completed education,

11% had completed some or all of high school (n = 8), 66% had completed some or all of

college or university (n = 47), and 23% had completed some or all of graduate school (n

= 16).

The second sample consisted of a sample of 92 high school students completing

grade 10, grade 11, or grade 12 in the Eastern School District. Of92 participants, 54% of

the sample were women (n = 50), and 97% of the sample was Caucasian (n = 85).

Measures

Participants in the adult sample were given six questionnaires, while those in the

adolescent sample were given five questionnaires. For a list of measures used in each

sample see Appendix F. Due to ethical considerations, current levels of childhood neglect

were not assessed in the adolescent population. While this limited the investigation of the

relationship between parentification and neglect, requesting permission from parents to

assess the child's perception of parental neglect posed the risk of greatly reducing the

range of participants in the sample. Thus, childhood neglect was not assessed in the high-

school population. All study measures in both the adult and adolescent sample were

randomized using a Latin Squares design. All measures were anonymous and identified

only with a randomly assigned research number number.

Filial Responsibility Scale (Jurkovic & Thirkield, 1999). The Filial

Responsibility Scale is a 60-item self-report questionnaire designed to assess both past

and present familial caregiving and perceived fairness in the family of origin. In the

present study, the 30-item past familial caregiving and perceived fairness scale was

administered, and only results from the 20-item past familial caregiving portion of the
PARENTIFICATION 33

scale were examined (see Appendix G). The measure consists of three subscales, a 10-

item instrumental caregiving scale (e.g., "I often did the family's laundry"), a 10-item

expressive caregiving scale (e.g., "I often felt caught in the middle of my parent's

conflicts"), and a 10-item unfairness scale (e.g., "My parents often criticized my efforts to

help out at home"). Participants rate responses on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating higher levels of

childhood parentification. Subscales of the FRS have been found to have acceptable

internal consistency; a =.80 and a =.85 for the instrumental and expressive subscales

respectively (Kelley et al., 2007).

Filial Responsibility Scale for Youth (FRS-Y; Jurkovic, Kuperminc, & Casey,

2000). The Filial Responsibility Scale for Youth was used to assess childhood

parentification in the adolescent sample (see Appendix H). The FRS-Y is a 34 item self-

report instrument assessing instrumental parentification (e.g., "I do a lot of the shopping

for groceries or clothes in my family''), expressive parentification (e.g., "I often try to

keep the peace in my family''), and perceived fairness (e.g., "It often seems that my

feelings don't count in my family"). The FRS-Y has been used in previous studies to

measure parentification in immigrant families; as such, two items related to language

assistance were not included in the present study. Participants rate responses on a 4-point

Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (very true), with higher scores indicating

higher levels of childhood parentification. Theory, clinical experience, focus groups, the

Parentification Questionnaire-Youth, and the adult version of the Filial Responsibility

Scale informed construction of the instrument. Although two previous studies have

utilized the scale with a two-factor solution, no agreed upon factor structure for the scale
PARENTIFICATION 34

has been produced (Jurkovic et al., 2005; Kuperminc et al., 2009). Accordingly, in the

present study, 32-items were combined to make one filial responsibility scale, which

demonstrated high internal consistency (a.= .89).

The Depression Anxiety Stress Scales- 21 (DASS-21; Antony, Bieling, Cox,

Enns, & Swinson, 1998). Depression and anxiety in the adult sample was assessed using

the 21-item version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (see Appendix I). The three

sub scales of this self-report measure each contain seven items each assessing depression

(e.g., "I felt down hearted and blue"), anxiety (e.g., "I felt I was close to panic"), and

stress (e.g., "I tended to over-react to situations"), respectively. Participants respond to

questions on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (did not apply to me at all) to 3

(applied to me very much, or most of the time) based on the preceding week.

The DASS-21 has been found to demonstrate strong psychometric properties in

both clinical and non-clinical populations. Exploratory factor analysis with a clinical

sample yielded a three-factor solution with excellent factor structure (Antony et al.,

1998). Cronbach's alphas in a large, non-clinical sample were reported to be .88 for the

depression scale, .82 for the anxiety scale, and .90 for the stress scale (Henry &

Crawford, 2005). The measure has also demonstrated good construct validity when

tested with the Beck Depression Inventory and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (Antony et

al., 1998).

The Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale (RCADS; Chorpita, Yim,

Moffitt, Umemoto & Francis, 2000). Depression and anxiety in the adolescent sample

was assessed using the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale (see Appendix J).

The RCADS is a 47-item self-report questionnaire designed to assess anxious and

PARENTIFICATION 35

depressive symptoms based on DSM-IV criteria. A factor analysis suggested six

subscales within the measure: separation anxiety disorder, specific phobia, obsessive

compulsive disorder, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive

disorder. Participants rate responses on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3

(always).

Normative data for the RCADS finds that it is acceptable for use with youth

ranging from age 8 to age 18 (de Ross, Gullone & Chorpita, 2002). High internal

consistency for the measure has been reported. In a non-clinical sample of adolescents

(age 13 to 18 years) Cronbach's alphas for the full scale in both male and female

participants was .96, while internal consistencies for the RCADS subscales ranged from

.66 to .88 (de Ross et al., 2002). The RCADS has also demonstrated good convergent

validity with the Children's Depression Inventory and the Revised Children's Manifest

Anxiety Scale (Chorpita et al., 2000).

Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker, Tupling & Brown, 1979). All

participants were administered the PBI (See Appendix K). The PBI is a 25-item self-

report questionnaire designed to assess an individual's perception of paternal and

maternal care and protection in the first 16 years of life. The instrument consists of two

subscales, 13 items measuring overprotection (control) versus encouragement of

autonomy (e.g., "tried to control everything I did") and 12 items assessing parental care

versus parental rejection (e.g., "was affectionate to me"). There is an identical separate

form for each parent, and for every item, participants rate each parent on a 4-point Likert

scale ranging from 0 (very like) to 3 (very unlike). The PBI has been found to have good

psychometric properties. In a sample of undergraduate students, Cronbach's alpha was

 ---------

P ARENTIFICATION 36

reported to range from .84 to .97 (Safford, Alloy & Pieracci, 2007). The PBI

demonstrates acceptable long-term consistency, with retest correlations ranging from .59

to .75 over a 20-year period and .74 to .79 over a 10-year period (Wilhelm, Niven,

Parker, & Hadzi-Pavlovic, 2005). In addition, scores on the PBI have been found to be

insensitive to mood states and life experiences (Wilhelm et al., 2005). Validity for the

measure has been established through the use of twin samples. Mean intra-class

correlations were reported to be .70 and .71 for the monozygotic and dizygotic pairs

respectively (Parker, 1986).

Family Functioning Scale (FFS; Bloom, 1985). The FFS consists of 15 five-

item scales designed to assess dimensions of family functioning (see Appendix L). The

FFS was developed from a large-scale factor analysis of four previously established

measures: the Family Environment Scale, the Family Concept Q-Sort, the Family

Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation, and the Family Assessment Measure. The final

version of the FFS was developed from three factor-analytic studies utilizing

undergraduate populations. For the purposes of this study, two subscales were selected

for possible relevance to the construct of parentification: enmeshment and cohesion (e.g.,

"there was a feeling of togetherness in our family"). Participants rate responses on a 4-

point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very untrue for my family) to 4 (very true for my

family). The FFS has demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties with Cronbach's

alpha in a non-clinical sample of adults reported to be .78 and .78 for the enmeshment

and cohesion subscales respectively (Bloom, 1985). In an adolescent sample, the

enmeshment and cohesion subscales were found to demonstrate significant and

theoretically predicted correlations with subscales of the Child Behaviour Checklist

PARENTIFICATION 37

(Barber & Buehler, 1996). Both adult and adolescent participants were administered the

FFS.

Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form (CTQ-SF; Bernstein et al.,

2003). Adult retrospective perceptions of childhood neglect were assessed using the

short form physical and emotional neglect subscales of the Childhood Trauma

Questionnaire (see Appendix M). The CTQ-SF was developed from a factor analysis the

original 70-item measure. Five items assess physical neglect (e.g., "not given enough to

eat") while five additional items assess emotional neglect (e.g., "felt loved" reverse

scored item). Participants respond to questions on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1

(never true) to 5 (very often true). The CTQ-SF has been validated with non-clinical,

clinical, and substance abusing samples, demonstrating measurement invariance across

groups (Bernstein et al., 2003). In addition, convergent validity for the CTQ-SF has been

demonstrated with therapist ratings of maltreatment (Bernstein et al., 2003).

The Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory (LMLCI;

Levenson, 1974). The LMLCI was used to assess internal locus of control in both the

adult and adolescent sample. See Study 1.

Demographic Information. All participants were given a short demographic

questionnaire created by the researcher (see Appendix Nand Appendix 0 for the

adolescent and adult forms respectively). The form assessed variables such as age and

sex, as well as information hypothesized to be relevant to parentification. Participants

were asked briefly about parental illness and/or alcoholism as well as the duration of the

experience if applicable. Birth-order, number of siblings, and childhood living

arrangement (e.g., two parent or single parent home) were also queried.
PARENTIFICATION 38

Procedure

Participants in the adult sample were recruited from doctors' office waiting rooms

and blood collection waiting rooms in St. John's. Prior to the start of research, permission

to recruit participants was obtained from Eastern Health (for the blood clinic recruitment)

and from the doctor of the medical clinic. After patients had checked in with the

receptionist, they were approached by a research assistant and informed about the

voluntary research study (see Appendix P). Willing participants were given a packet of

questionnaires, including an informed consent form (see Appendix Q), study instructions

(see Appendix R), the six study measures, an anonymous demographic form and a pencil.

Participants completed the packet while seated in the waiting room. Once packets were

complete, they were returned to the research assistant and placed in an envelope. The

questionnaire packet took approximately 25 minutes to complete. Research assistants

visited waiting rooms approximately 2-3 hours per day, 2-3 times each week for

approximately 10 weeks.

Participants in the high school sample were recruited through classroom visits

made by research assistants. Prior to the start of research, permission to recruit

participants was obtained from the Eastern School District and from the principal of each

high school. Once permission to recruit participants had been granted, research assistants

visited each class giving students a short, general introduction to the study (see Appendix

S). All students were then given an information letter to take home explaining the study

(see Appendix T), along with a permission slip for parental consent to participate in the

research (see Appendix U). In the days following the initial visit, permission slips were

collected from the school and a time was set with the principal in which students would
 - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - --

PARENTIFICATION 39

complete the study. Students with parental consent met with the researcher during class

time, at a time set by the principal, to complete the questionnaire packet. The

questionnaire packet consisted of an informed assent form (see Appendix V), study

instructions (see Appendix W), five study measures, and a short anonymous demographic

form. Participants were tested in a quiet room on school property and took approximately

20 minutes to complete the questionnaires. To maintain anonymity, parental consent

forms were kept separately from completed participant questionnaire packets.

Results

Means and standard deviations for the adult and adolescent study measures are

found in Table 5.

Table 5

Means and standard deviations for the FRS Expressive and Instrumental subscales, the

FRS-Y, the DASS Depression and Anxiety subscales, the RCADS Depression and Anxiety

subscales, the PBI Mother Care and Control subscales, the PBI Father Care and Control

subscales, the FFS Enmeshment and Cohesion subscales, the CTQ Emotional and

Physical Neglect subscales, and the LMLCI Internal Locus of Control subscale in the

adult sample and adolescent sample.

Adult Sample Adolescent Sample

Measure Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

FRS-Expressive 23.91 (8.11)

FRS-Instrumental 21.31 (8.24)

FRS-Y 57.64 (14.27)

DASS-Depression 3.52 (4.01)

P ARENTIFICATION 40

DASS-Anxiety 2.92 (3.49)

RCADS-MDD 19.02 (5.92)

RCADS-ANX 71.23 (19.28)

PBI-Mother Care 27.73 (7.64) 26.77 (7.50)

PBI-Father Care 24.68 (9.09) 25.64 (7.78)

PBI-Mother Control 12.85 (6.55) 13.28 (6.85)

PBI-Father Control 12.04 (7.43) 11.18 (7.14)

FFS-Enmeshment 8.35 (2.86) 9.17 (2.88)

FFS-Cohesion 15.97 (3.48) 15.55 (3.42)

CTQ-Emotional 9.01 (5.05)

CTQ-Physical 6.74 (2.72)

LMLCI-1 34.51 (6.91) 21.00 (5.47)

Note. FRS = Filial Responsibility Scale; FRS- Y = Filial Responsibility Scale for Youth; DASS =

Depression Anxiety Stress Scales; R CADS MDD = Revised Child Anxiety and Dep ression Scale major

depressive disorder subscale; RCADS ANX = Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety

composite score; PBI = Parental Bonding Instrument; FFS = Family Functioning Scale; CTQ =

Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; LMLCI-1 = Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory

internal locus of control subscale

In both the adult and adolescent samples, independent samples t-tests were

conducted to determine whether mean scores in the study measures differed significantly

between men and women (see Table 6). No significant gender differences were found in

the adult sample on any of the study measures, including the Expressive (t(75) = -.62, p =

.54, d = .15) and Instrumental (t(75) = -.49, p = .63, d = .12) subscales of the FRS. In the
PARENTIFICATION 41

adolescent sample, significant gender differences were found on the RCDAS-Major

Depressive Disorder (t(90)= -2.50,p = .01, d =.52) and RCADS-Anxiety (t(90)= -4.19,p

< .01, d = .88) subscales, whereby girls reported higher depression and anxiety than boys.

Girls also scored significantly higher than boys on the PBI-Mother Control subscale

(t(90)= -2.85, p<.Ol, d = .60). Significant gender differences were not found for the FRS-

Y scale (t(90)= -1.75,p= .08, d= .37).

Table 6

Means and standard devi'ations by gender for the FRS Expressive and Instrumental

subscales,the FRS-Y, the DASS Depression and Anxiety subscales, the RCADS

Depression and Anxiety subscales the PBI Mother Care and Control subscales, the PBI

Father Care and Control subscales, the FFS Enmeshment and Cohesion subscales, the

CTQ Emotional and Physical Neglect subscales, and the LMLCJ Internal Locus of

Control subscale in the adult sample and adolescent sample.

Adult Sam12le Adolescent Sam12le

Measure Female Male Female Male
Mean {SD} Mean {SD} Mean {SD} Mean {SD}
FRS-Expressive 24.11(9.08) 22.97(5.44)

FRS-Instrumental 21.68(9.08) 20. 73(8.59)

FRS-Y 60.00(16.04) 54.83(11.38)

DASS-D 3.44(4.06) 3.66(4.18)

DASS-A 2.84(3.40) 3.14(3.85)

RCADS-MDD 20.40(5.81)* 17.37(5.69)*

RCADS-ANX 78.38(18.80)* 62.69(16.30)*

 - - -- - - - - -- - - - -

PARENTIFICATION 42

PBI-Mother Care 27.06(7.78) 27.13(7.88) 25.90(7.83) 27.81(7.05)

PBI-Father Care 24.89(8.30) 24.28(1 0.1 0) 25.20(8.31) 26.12(7.23)

PBI-Mother 12.96(6.48) 12.20(6.74) 15.08(7.34)* 11.14(5.57)*

Control

PBI-Father 12.74(6.88) 10.41(8.32) 12.13(7.05) 10.14(7.18)

Control

FFS-Enmeshment 8.27(2.93) 8.52(2.84) 8.82(2.96) 9.59(2.76)

FFS-Cohesion 15.91(3.55) 16.20(3.18) 15.12(3.49) 16.07(3.32)

CTQ-Emotional 9.17(2.49) 8.72(4.76)

CTQ-Physical 6.40(2.81) 7.29(2.49)

LMLCI-I 34.43(7.52) 34.57(6.28) 21.29(4.67) 20.66(6.32)

Note. FRS = Filial Responsibility Scale; FRS- Y = Filial Responsibility Scale for Youth; DASS =

Depression Anxiety Stress Scales; RCADS MDD = Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale major

depressive disorder subscale; RCADS ANX = Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety

composite score; PBI = Parental Bonding Instrument; FFS = Family Functioning Scale; CTQ =

Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; LMLCI-1 = Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory

internal locus ofcontrol subscale

* indicates significant mean score difference

Tests of internal consistency were conducted on all study measures in both the

adult and adolescent samples (see Table 7). In the adult sample, moderate internal

consistencies were found for the Expressive (a = .83) and Instrumental (a = .85)

subscales of the FRS. Internal consistencies greater than a = .70 are generally considered

acceptable, however if a scale is comprised of fewer than 20 items, the acceptable lower

bound may be decreased to a = .60 (Nunnally, 1967). The CTQ-Physical Neglect

subscale, comprised offive items, and the LMLCI-Intemal Locus of Control subscale,
--------- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -- - - -- ----

P ARENTIFICATION 43

comprised of8 items, each exhibited low but acceptable internal consistency (a = .62 and

a= .61 respectively). The remaining scales in the adult sample obtained moderate or

excellent internal consistencies. In the adolescent sample, internal consistency for the

FRS was high moderate (a = .89). While the majority of remaining scales demonstrated

moderate or excellent internal consistencies, the LMLCI-Internal Locus of Control

subscale did not reach an acceptable level of internal consistency (a = .56) in the

adolescent sample.

Table 7

Internal consistencies for the FRS Expressive and Instrumental subscales, the FRS-Y, the

DASS Depression and Anxiety subscales, the RCADS Depression and Anxiety subscales,

the PBI Mother Care and Control subscales, the PBI Father Care and Control subscales,

the FFS Enmeshment and Cohesion subscales, the CTQ Emotional and Physical Neglect

subscales, and the LMLCI Internal Locus of Control subscale in the adult and adolescent

sample.

Adult Sample Adolescent Sample

Measure Internal Consistency (a) Internal Consistency (a)

FRS-Expressive .83

FRS-Instrumental .85

FRS-Y .89

DASS-Depression .89

DASS-Anxiety .80

RCADS-MDD .87

RCADS-ANX .95
----~ ~ - --~-- ~--~

PARENTIFICATION 44

PBI-Mother Care .90 .92

PBI-Father Care .94 .91

PBI-Mother Control .78 .82

PBI-Father Control .85 .86

FFS-Enmeshment .77 .72

FFS-Cohesion .82 .83

CTQ-Emotional .94

CTQ-Physical .62

LMLCI-1 .60 .56

Note. FRS = Filial Responsibility Scale; FRS-Y = Filial Responsibility Scale for Youth; DASS =

Depression Anxiety Stress Scales; RCADS MDD = Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale major

depressive disorder subscale; RCADS ANX = Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety

composite score; PBI = Parental Bonding Instrument; FFS = Family Functioning Scale; CTQ =

Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; LMLCI-I = Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory

internal locus ofcontrol subscale

Independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine if parentification score

differed significantly between those with parental drug and or alcohol problems and those

without (see Table 8). In the adult sample, expressive (t(76) = -4.60, p <.01, d = 1.56) and

instrumental (t(76) = -1.92,p = .059, d = .70) parentification scores were higher for those

who reported parental drug and or alcohol problems (n = 10) while they were living at

home than those who did not (n = 68). In the adolescent sample, parentification scores

were also found to be significantly higher for those with a parent who had drug and/or

alcohol problems (n = 12) than those without (n = 74; (t (84) = -3.42, p < .01 , d = 1.06)).

Independent samples t tests were also conducted to determine if parentification scores

 -------------- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- -

PARENTIFICATION 45

differed significantly between those who had a parent with a chronic debilitating mental

and or physical illness and those who did not (see Table 8). In the adult sample,

instrumental parentification scores were significantly higher for those who indicated one

or both of their parents had experienced a chronic debilitating illness while they were

living at home (n = 6) than those who did not (n = 72; t(76) = -2. 75, p < .01, d = 1.17)).

The difference in expressive parentification scores was non-significant between the two

groups (t(76) = -l.73,p = .09, d = .74); however, a medium effect size was found for the

difference. Similarly, in the adolescent sample, a non-significant difference with medium

effect size was found for the difference in parentification score between those with (n =

7) and without (n = 76) a parent with a chronic debilitating physical and or mental illness

(t(81) = -1.78, p =.08, d = .71).

Table 8

Means and standard deviations for the FRS Expressive and Instrumental subscales and

the FRS-Yfor those with and without parental drug and/or alcohol problems and those

with and without parental chronic debilitating mental and/or physical illness.

Mean(SD)
Mean(SD)
No Mean(SD) Mean(SD)
Measure Drug!Alcohol
Drug/Alcohol No Illness Illness
Problem
Problem
Adult Sample
FRS-Expressive 22.59(6.66) 26.00(1 0. 74)* 23 .58(7.80) 29 .50(1 0.95)
FRS-Instrumental 20.68(7. 79) 36.90(10.68)* 20.64(7.92) 30.00(9.14)*
Adolescent Sample
FRS-Y 54.86(12.90) 68.42(11.53)* 56.12(14.07) 66.00(13 .69)
Note. FRS = Filial Responsibility Scale; FRS-Y = Filial Responsibility Scale f or Youth
*Indicates a significant difference in mean scores
P ARENTIFICATION 46

Physical and emotional neglect scores were examined in the adult sample. Based

on data from a non-clinical population, Bernstein and Fink (1998) developed clinical cut-

off scores to classify severity of neglect. Consistent with additional research in non-

clinical samples (Paivio & Cramer, 2004), the present study employed the lowest level

cut-off score, indicating mild experience of neglect, to classify those who had

experienced child neglect. In the adult sample, 30% of participants (n = 23) met criteria

for childhood physical neglect, 32% (n = 25) met criteria for childhood emotional

neglect, whereas 19% (n = 15) exceeded the cut-off score for both physical and emotional

neglect. When compared to mean scores of participants with no physical neglect history,

participants with previous experiences of childhood physical neglect had significantly

higher mean instrumental parentification scores (t(22) = 2.36, p < .05, d = .60), but not

significantly higher mean expressive parentification scores (t(22) = 1.99, p > .05, d =

.50). Conversely, when compared to mean scores of participants with no emotional

neglect history, individuals with childhood emotional neglect history had significantly

higher expressive parentification scores (t(24) = 2.25, p < .05, d = .55), but not

significantly higher instrumental parentification scores {t(24) = 2.03, p > .05, d = .50).

In both populations the relationship between parentification score and family

composition was examined. In the adult sample, only four participants indicated they had

not lived with both parents together while growing up. As a result, parental living

arrangement was re-coded into those who had lived with both parents together and those

who had not. Independent samples t-tests found no significant difference in expressive

{t(76) = 1.54, p =.13, d = .79) or instrumental {t(76) = .33, p = .74, d = .1 7) parentification

between the two groups. In the adolescent sample, a one-way analysis of variance
P ARENTIFICATION 47

(ANOVA) was conducted to determine the relationship between parental living

arrangement (mother and father live together (n = 68), parents do not live together and

child lives mostly or only with mother (n = 11 ), parents do not live together and child

lives mostly or only with father (n = 2), child spend equal time living with each parent

separately (n = 4), other living arrangement (n = 1) and parentification score. Only one

participant indicated they were not living with either parent, and thus the participant's

data was excluded from this analysis. Significant group differences were found (F(3,81)

= 3.65,p < .05); however, due to unequal group sample sizes follow-up tests examining

specific group differences were not conducted. Though group sample sizes were unequal,

there appears to be a trend indicating that those living with both parents together had

lower parentification scores (M = 55.29, SD = 12.08) than those living mostly or only

with mother (M = 60.82, SD = 17.80) or father (M = 69.00, SD = 8.49), or those living an

equal amount of time with both parents separately (M = 75.50, SD = 24.83).

ANOVAs and independent samples t tests were conducted to determine the

relationship between parentification score and familial position (oldest, middle, or

youngest child, or only child status; see Table 9). After controlling for number of

siblings and age, in the adult sample, significant group differences were found in

expressive (F(4,62) = 3.48,p < .01) and instrumental (F(4,62) = 2.5l,p = .05)

parentification scores based on familial position, whereby oldest child status was related

to higher expressive parentification scores than middle or youngest child status, and

middle child status was related to slightly higher instrumental parentification scores. Only

child status did not demonstrate significantly higher expressive (t(77) = .81 , p = .42, d =

.48) or instrumental (t(77) = -.36, p = .72, d = .21) parentification scores; however, only
PARENTIFICATION 48

three participants in the adult sample indicated only child status. After controlling for

number of siblings in the adolescent sample, no significant group differences were found

in parentification score based on familial position (F(3,73) = .56, p = .62) and only child

status (n = 9) did not indicate significantly higher parentification scores (t(86) = -.33 , p =

.74, d = .12)

Table 9

Means and standard deviations for the FRS Expressive and Instrumental subscales and

the FRS-Y based on familial position and only child status.

Adult SamQle
Measure Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Mean(SD)
Oldest Child Middle Child Youngest Child Only Child
(n = 24) (n = 24) (n = 28) (n = 3)

FRS-Expressive 26.63(9.48) 24.63(8.17) 20.61(6.15) 27.67(4.16)

Adolescent Sample

Measure Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Mean(SD)

Oldest Child Middle Child Youngest Child Only Child
(n = 31) (n = 8) (n = 39) (n = 9)

FRS 59.29(13.24) 59.88(8.36) 55.80(14.34) 55.89(20.16)

Note. FRS = Filial Responsibility Scale; FRS-Y = Filial Responsibility Scale for Youth

To test the main study hypotheses, bivariate correlations were conducted in both

the adult and adolescent samples (see Table 10 and Table 11 respectively). In the adult

sample, correlations were conducted between parentification score, family enmeshment

and cohesion, parental care and control, emotional and physical neglect, depression and

anxiety, and internal locus of control. Consistent with the study hypotheses, expressive

parentification was found to be significantly and positively correlated with family

PARENTIFICATION 49

enmeshment (r = .43, p < .01 ), and significantly and negatively correlated with family

cohesion (r = -.48,p < .01). Similarly, instrumental parentification was also found to be

significantly and positively related to family enmeshment (r = .37, p < .01) and

negatively correlated with family cohesion (r = -.31, p < .01 ). As predicted, expressive

parentification were found to be negatively correlated with perceptions of maternal (r = -

.35,p < .01) and paternal (r = -.27,p < .05) care; however, contrary to the study

hypotheses, expressive parentification was found to be positively correlated with

perceptions of maternal (r = .22,p = .06) and paternal (r = .36,p < .01) control.

Instrumental parentification was also found to be negatively correlated with perceptions

of maternal care (r = -.31,p < .OI) and positively correlated with perceptions of maternal

control (r = .22, p = .06), but was not found to be significantly related to paternal care (r
= -.19, p = .1 0) or paternal control (r = .19, p = .1 0). Consistent with the study

hypotheses, both expressive and instrumental parentification were found to be positively,

significantly correlated with childhood physical neglect (r = .42, p < .0 I; r = .32, p < .0 I

respectively) and positively, significantly related to childhood emotional neglect (r = .48,

p < .01; r = .36, p < .01). Neither expressive nor instrumental parentification were found

to be significantly correlated with depression (r = .04, p = .75; r = -.03,p = .81

respectively) or anxiety (r = .16,p = .17; r = .08, p = .51 respectively) in the adult

sample. A non-significant relationship was found between expressive and instrumental

parentification scores and internal locus of control (r = -.03, p = .83; r = -.1 0, p = .40

respectively).

Similar bivariate correlations were conducted in the adolescent sample. Consistent

with the study hypotheses, parentification scores were found to be strongly, negatively
P ARENTIFICATION 50

related to family cohesion scores (r = -.58, p < .01), and significantly positively related to

family enmeshment (r = .23, p < .05). Parentification was found to be significantly

negatively related to perceptions of maternal (r = -.42, p < .01) and paternal (r = -.24, p <

.05) care, and positively related to perceptions of paternal control (r = .2 1, p <.05) and

maternal (r = .20, p = .06) control. In the adolescent sample, parentification was found to

correlate strongly and significantly with both depression (r =.55, p < .01) and anxiety

scores (r = .52, p < .01), but showed no correlation with internal locus of control (r = .02,

p = .84).
 PARENTIFICATION 51
Table 10

Bivariate correlations between the FRS Expressive and Instrumental subscales, the DASS Depression and Anxiety subscales,

the PBI Mother Care and Control subscales, the PBI Father Care and Control subscales, the FFS Enmeshment and Cohesion

subscales, the LMLCI Internal Locus of Control subscale, and the CTQ Emotional and Physical Neglect subscales in the adult

sample.

Measure FRS-E FRS-I DASS-D DASS-A PBI-M PBI-M PBI-F PBI-F FFS-E FFS-C LMLCI-I CTQ-PN

Care Control Care Control

FRS-I .68**

DASS-D .04 -.03

DASS-A .16 .08 .82**

PBI-M Care -.35** -.31 ** -.17 -.09

PBI-M .22 .22 .24* .27* -.37**

Control

PBI-F Care -.27* -.19 -.15 -.03 .43** -.16

 PARENTIFICATION 52
PBI-F Control .36** .19 .21 .30** -.24* .67** -.17

FFS-E .43** .37** .06 .10 -.28* .34** -.06 .33**

FFS-C -.48** -.31 ** -.19 -.16 .64** -.19 .73** -.34** -.10

LCLMI-I -.07 -.13 -.19 -.29* .18 -.07 -.01 -.01 -.19 .07

CTQ-PN .42** .32** .21 .26* -.36** .06 -.27* .13 .05 -.44** -.05

CTQ-EN .48** .36** .20 .23* -.67** .17 -.60** .32** .14 -.83** -.07 -67**

Note. FRS-I = Filial Responsibility Scale instrumental subscale; FRS-E = Filial Responsibility Scale expressive subscale; DASS-D= Depression

Anxiety Stress Scale depression subscale; DASS-A = Depression Anxiety Stress Scale anxiety subscale; PBI M Care= Parental Bonding Instrument

mother care subscale; PBI M Control= Parental Bonding Instrument mother control subscale; PBI F Care= Parental Bonding Instrument father care

subscale; PBI-F Control= Parental Bonding Instrument father control subscale; FFS-E= Family Functioning Scale enmeshment subscale; FFS-C=

Family fUnctioning Scale cohesion subscale; LMLCI-I = Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory internal locus ofcontrol subscale;

CTQ-PN= Childhood Trauma Questionnaire physical neglect subscale; CTQ-EN= childhood Trauma Questionnaire emotional neglect subscale

*p<.05 **p<.Ol

Table 11

Bivariate correlations between the FRS-Y, the RCADS Depression and Anxiety subscales, the PBI Mother Care and Control

subscales, the PBI Father Care and Control subscales, the FFS Enmeshment and Cohesion subscales, and the LMLCI Internal

Locus of Control subscale in the adolescent sample.

 PARENTIFICATION 53

Measure FRS-Y RCADS- RCADS- PBI-M PBI-M PBI-F PBI-F FFS-E FFS-C

MDD ANX Care Control Care Control

RCADS- .55**

MDD

RCADS- .52** .71 **

ANX

PBI-M -.42** -.25* -.21 *

Care

PBI-M .20 .11 .26* -.46**

Control

PBI-F -.24* -.33** -.22* .34** -.15

Care

PBI-F .21 * .49** .45** -.36** .51** -.20

Control
 P ARENTIFICATION 54
FFS-E .23* .18 .12 -.12 .15 -.17 .25*

FFS-C -.58** -.51** -.31 ** .53** -.33** .48** -.35** -.29**

LCLMI-I .02 .23* .25* -.27* .22* -.33** .17 .20 -.15

Note. FRS-Y =Filial Responsibility Scale for youth; RCADS MDD = Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale major depressive disorder subscale;

RCADS ANX =Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety composite score; PBI M Care= Parental Bonding Instrument mother care

subscale; PBI M Control= Parental Bonding Instrument mother control subscale; PBI F Care= Parental Bonding Instrument father care subscale;

PBI-F Control= Parental Bonding Instrument father control subscale; FFS-E= Family Functioning Scale enmeshment subscale; FFS-C= Family

functioning Scale cohesion subscale; LMLCI-I =Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Inventory internal locus ofcontrol subscale;

*p<.05 **p<.Ol
PARENTIFICATION 55

To test the predictive nature of the relationship between parentification and

maladaptive outcome score in the adolescent sample, a regression analysis was

conducted. Parentification was found to be a significant predictor of both depression (R 2

= .30, F(1,88) = 37.12,p < .01) and anxiety (R 2 = .27, F(1,88) = 33.66, p < .01). A further

moderation analysis was conducted to test the relationship between parentification,

internal locus of control, and psychological adjustment established in Study 1 (see Table

12). Main effects in the regression analysis showed that both parentification score (B =

.54,p < .01) entered in the first step, and internal locus of control entered in the second

step (13 = .22, p < .05) were significant predictors of depression scores, with higher

parentification scores being associated with high depression and higher internal locus of

control associated with lower depression. The regression equation with both

parentification and internal locus of control was also significant (F(2,86) = 22.34, p <

.01); together, parentification and internal locus of control accounted for 32.7% of the

variance in depression scores. The interaction of parentification and internal locus of

control was found to be non-significant CP = .49, t = .85,p = .05), suggesting that the

interaction term was not accounting for an additional proportion of variance (Fchange (1 ,

83) = .71,p > .05; R 2change = .006) beyond that accounted for by either predictor alone.

When anxiety was examined as an outcome variable, main effects demonstrated

that parentification (B =.53, p < .01) entered in the first step and internal locus of control

(B = .23,p = .01) entered in the second step were significant predictors, with higher

parentification associated with higher anxiety and higher internal locus of control related

to lower levels of anxiety. The regression equation with both parentification and internal

locus of control entered together was also significant (F(2.86) = 21.46, p < .01 ), together
P ARENTIFICATION 56

accounting for 33% of the variance in anxiety scores. The interaction ofparentification

and internal locus of control was not significant (B = .28, t = .51 , p = .61) suggesting that

internal locus of control was not moderating the relationship between parentification and

2
anxiety scores (Fchange (I,85) = .6I,p > .05; R change = .002).

Table 12

Hierarchical regression analyses testing internal locus of control as a moderator in the

relationship between parentification and depression and parentification and anxiety in

the adolescent sample

Predictor B j3 T R2 R change Fchange p

RCADS-MDD

FRS-Y .23 .54 6.04 .30 .30 36.44 .00

LMLCI-1 .24 .22 2.47 .34 .05 6.10 .02

FRS-Y x LMLCI-I .01 .47 .85 .31 .01 .71 .40

RCADS-ANX

FRS-Y .69 .53 5.80 .28 .28 33.64 .00

LMLCI-1 .80 .23 2.64 .33 .05 6.96 .01

FRS-Y x LMLCI-1 .01 .28 .51 .34 .00 .26 .61

Note. FRS-Y = Filial Responsibility Scale for Youth; RCADS MDD = Revised Child Anxiety and

Depression Scale major depressive disorder subscale; RCADS ANX = Revised Child Anxiety and

Depression Scale anxiety composite score; LMLCI-1 = Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control

Inventory internal locus ofcontrol subscale

Finding significant correlations between parentification and maternal and paternal

care, maternal and paternal care and depression (r = -.25,p < .05; r = -.34, p < .01
P ARENTIFICATION 57

respectively), and maternal and paternal care and anxiety (r = -.22, p < .01; r = .24,p <

.05 respectively) in the adolescent sample, the question arose as to what proportion of

adolescent depression and anxiety could be uniquely accounted for by parentification

after perceptions of parental care had been taken into account. A regression analysis was

conducted to test the relationship between maternal care and the outcome variables,

finding that maternal care was a significant predictor ofboth depression (Fcltange (1,90) =

5.79, p <. 05, R 2

c1tange = .06,) and anxiety scores (Fcltange (1,90) = 4.22, p < .05, R 2c1tange =
.05,). The unique variance between parentification scores and the outcome variables was

then examined after perceptions of maternal care had been controlled for. Parentification

was found to significantly predict both depression (Fclzange (2,89) = 30.40, p < .01; R 2change
2
= .24) and anxiety (Fcltange (2,89) = 28.28, p < .05; R change= .23) when entered in the

second step of the regression equation. Concurrent analyses were then conducted with

perceptions of paternal care and the outcome variables. In the regression analysis,

paternal care was found to significantly predict both depression (Fclzange (1 , 86) = 10.23,

p< .01, R 2
c1zange = .11) and anxiety (Fcltange (1 ,86) = 4.29, p < .05, R 2c1tange = .05) scores.
The relationships between parentification and the outcome variables were then examined

after perceptions of paternal care had been controlled for. After entering paternal care in

the first step of the regression equation, parentification was found to account for unique
2
variance in depression (Fclzange (2,85) = 29.15,p< .01; R c1zange = .23) and anxiety (Fclzange

(2,86) = 27.87, p < .05; R 2change = .24) scores. These results suggest that parentification

was contributing unique variance in depression and anxiety scores beyond that accounted

for by perceptions of decreased maternal and paternal care.

PARENTIFICATION 58

Discussion

The present investigation sought to address two gaps in the research literature on

childhood parentification. The first aim of the research was to identify a moderating

variable to help elucidate the relationship between parentification and its differential

outcomes. Utilizing an undergraduate sample, two differential psychological outcomes of

parentification were examined (depression and happiness) and internal locus of control

was identified as a potential moderating variable in the relationship between

parentification and outcome. Further examining the outcomes of depression and anxiety,

these results were not replicated in the adult and adolescent samples.

In an effort to further delineate the construct of parentification, the second aim of

the research was to quantitatively test perceptions of childhood parentification in relation

to theoretically proposed correlates. Utilizing the adolescent and adult sample, it was

found that childhood parentification was associated with perceptions of increased family

enmeshment, decreased family cohesion, perceptions of low maternal and paternal care,

and perceptions of emotional and physical neglect. Findings across the two studies help

to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the parentification construct. Results

of the two studies suggest that generally, and from the perspective of the child,

parentification takes place under circumstances of decreased maternal and/or paternal

care, where family members are engaged in mutually unsupportive, over-involved

relationships, and whether intentional or unintentional, physical and emotional neglect is

experienced; further, results from the two studies indicate that experiences of childhood

parentification are associated with maladaptive short-term psychological outcomes.

P ARENTIFICATION 59

The Outcomes of Childhood Parentification

Consistent with research findings on the maladaptive outcomes of childhood

parentification (e.g., Jacobvitz & Bush, 1996; Peris et al., 2008), in the adolescent

sample, childhood parentification was found to be associated with increased ratings of

depression and anxiety. Similarly in the undergraduate sample, childhood parentification

was associated with ratings of depression and happiness, suggesting that higher levels of

parentification during childhood were associated with elevated levels of depression and

decreased levels of happiness in young adulthood. In contrast, reports of childhood

parentification were found to be unrelated to self-rated depression and anxiety scores in

the adult sample.

The finding that reports of childhood parentification were associated with

maladaptive psychological outcomes in adolescent and undergraduate populations, and

unrelated to maladaptive outcomes in the adult population, may be explained by the time

elapsed since parentification roles were last experienced. High school students who give

ratings of childhood parentification are responding to items that query experiences that

are currently taking place, or have taken place in the recent past. Similarly, the mean age

of the undergraduate sample indicates that childhood experiences were not long past.

While both the undergraduate and adult community samples assessed individuals legally

considered to be adult, participants from the adult community sample had a mean age of

40 years, whereas the mean age of the undergraduate population was approximately 24.

years. Thus, in the undergraduate population assessed, childhood parentification

experiences were more immediate to current life situation than to individuals in the adult

sample. Results across the three samples suggest that the impact of parentification on
PARENTIFICATION 60

psychological maladjustment is strongest when parentification roles have been more

recently experienced. It must be considered, however, that the present investigation used

different measures to assess psychological outcomes in the three samples. The use of

distinct measures that produced consistent findings in the adolescent and undergraduate

samples supports that notion that elapsed time is an explanatory factor in the relationship

between parentification and maladaptive outcome. However, due to the different

measures used to assess outcome, measurement issues cannot be precluded as an

explanation for the discrepant findings in the adult sample.

In a 2007 longitudinal study, Stein et al. found a strong association between

parentification scores and maladaptive outcomes in an initial assessment of an adolescent

population. However, when re-assessed six years later, parentification was found to be

associated with more adaptive outcomes, such as better adaptive coping skills and

decreased substance use. While the current investigation did not address the adaptive

outcomes ofparentification, the results of the present research are consistent with the

finding by Stein et al (2007) that maladaptive outcomes of parentification may decrease

over time. The cross-sectional design of the present investigation precludes conclusions

on the progression of the outcomes ofparentification over time. However, the results of

the present analyses provide evidence that when concurrently or more recently

experienced, parentification is associated with maladaptive psychological outcomes, and

suggest that the negative outcomes of parentification may have less impact as the elapsed

time between adult-child role reversal increases.

In Study 1, internal locus of control was found to moderate the relationship

between parentification and psychological adjustment; however, Study 2 failed to

PARENTIFICATION 61

replicate the previous findings. Although the second study provides evidence contrary to

the hypothesis that internal locus of control acts as a moderator in the relationship

between parentification and psychological outcome, the instrument used to assess internal

locus of control may explain the non-significant results. As there was a non-significant

relationship between parentification and psychological maladjustment in the adult

community sample, only the adolescent sample could be used to test the moderation

relationship. The LMLCI- internal locus of control subscale did not meet the acceptable

lower bound internal consistency rating in the adolescent population assessed and thus

may not have been an appropriate measure of internal locus of control. Additionally,

outcome was assessed in the adolescent, undergraduate and adult samples with three

distinct psychological measures. Differences between the outcome measures may also

have contributed to the discrepant findings. Further investigation is required to fully

determine the role of internal locus of control in the relationship between parentification

and outcome.

Deiming the Construct

Consistent with hypotheses on the context of parentification (e.g., Barnett &

Parker, 1998), in both the adult and adolescent samples, parentification scores were found

to be significantly higher for individuals who indicated that one or both parents had

issues with drugs and/or alcohol while they were living at home. The results of the

present investigation are consistent with previous findings on the relationship between

childhood parentification and parental alcoholism. In a 1998 study with undergraduate

students, Chase and colleagues found that children of alcoholics had significantly higher

childhood parentification scores than those who did not grow up in alcoholic homes.
PARENTIFICATION 62

Similarly, in a recent analysis, Kelley et al. (2007) found children of alcoholics to have

higher parentification scores, as assessed by both the PQ and FRS scales. Results from

the present investigation thus provide further support for the relationship between

parental substance use and childhood parentification.

Further examining the context of childhood parentification in the adult sample,

instrumental, but not expressive parentification scores, were found to be significantly

higher for those who indicated that one or both of their parents had experienced a chronic

debilitating illness while there were living at home. Instrumental parentification involves

caring for the physical needs of the parent or family, while expressive parentification

involves caring for emotional needs (Jurkovic, 1997). When one or both parents

experience a serious illness, physical condition may hinder the maintenance of household

tasks. To compensate for maladies of the parent and maintain order in the household, the

child may then assume the role of caring for household chores. It is possible that if a

parent is physically sick but mentally well, the more immediate needs of the adult may be

physical care for self and home, and to a lesser extent emotional support, which may be

received from adults outside of the home. Although the present investigation did not

differentiate between physical and mental illness, the difference in significance between

instrumental and emotional parentification may in part explained by the primary needs of

a parent with a debilitating illness. The non-significant finding in expressive

parentification may also be explained by the small number of participants who lived in

homes where one or both parent had a chronic illness (n= 6). A medium effect size was

calculated for the difference in mean scores, suggesting that a larger sample likely would

have resulted in a significant difference. In the adolescent sample, no significant

P ARENTIFICATION 63

difference was found in parentification score for those with and without a parent with a

chronic debilitating illness. The results again may be explained by the relatively small

number of participants living in homes with a parental debilitating illness (n= 7). The

medium effect size calculated indicates that a larger sample likely would have resulted in

a significant difference. Tompkins (2007) for instance, found that children with HIV

positive mothers were significantly more likely to adopt a parental role than same age

peers. The present investigation found partial support for this finding in a general

community sample. While the present analyses found parental illness only resulted in

elevated instrumental parentification scores in the adult sample, the proportion of

participants endorsing parental illness in a community population may have been

insufficient to detect smaller differences in the adolescent sample. Tompkins selected

sample contained 23 children with maternal HIV status, and 20 children from non-

affected families, whereas the present study obtained only 6 adult participants and 7

adolescent participants with some form of a self-rated parental chronic debilitating

illness.

In reviews of the parentification literature, Barnett and Parker (1998), and Earley

and Cushway (2002) found that childhood parentification was more likely under various

circumstances of parental distress. Results from the present investigation yielded support

for this finding in the context of parental substance abuse and parental illness.

When examining demographic and family composition variables in relation to

childhood parentification scores, several interesting findings emerged. Significant gender

differences were not found in parentification scores for either the instrumental or

expressive parentification subscales of the FRS in the adult sample, or the FRS-Y
PARENTIFICATION 64

parentification scale in the adolescent sample. Thus, parentification scores were not

significantly higher for men or women in the present study. Non-significant gender

differences in parentification score are consistent with the findings ofPeris and

colleagues (2008), but contrary to the findings of Stein and associates (1999), who found

women to have higher parentification scores than men. These differences may be

explained by the samples tested in the two aforementioned studies. Although both studies

examined parentification in adolescent samples, the work of Peris and colleagues was

carried out with a community sample of children from maritally intact families, while the

research of Stein and associates was conducted in a sample of young people living with a

parent with HIVI AIDS. The discrepant gender findings may be explained by the care

needs of individuals with debilitating illnesses. Individuals with serious long-term

disease, such as HIVIAIDS, require more intensive physical care than those without.

According to a report from Statistics Canada, women engage in more unpaid physical

care roles than men (Zukewich, 2003); thus, it is logical that gender differences in

parentification were found for a sample of children who had parents with HIVI AIDS. As

the present analyses were conducted in two general community populations, the samples

tested more closely parallel those examined by Peris et al. (2008). The current

investigation provides further evidence that there are no significant gender differences in

parentification for community populations.

With respect to familial living arrangements (mother and father live together,

parents do not live together and child lives mostly or only with mother, parents do not

live together and child lives mostly or only with father, child spend equal time living with

each parent separately, other living arrangement), significant group differences were
PARENTIFICATION 65

found in the adolescent, but not the adult sample. In the adolescent sample, children

living with both parents together were found to have lower parentification scores than

those living with one parent separately. The findings from the adolescent sample are

consistent with the work of McMahon and Luthar (2007). In two parent homes, one adult

can assume primary parental responsibilities should circumstances arise where one

person is unable to fulfill an adult role. Conceivably, if such circumstances arise in a

single parent family, there is less probability that another adult will step into the parental

role, leaving greater opportunity for parentification experiences to take place. Significant

differences in FRS subscale scores were not found for living arrangements in the adult

sample, however the proportion of individuals who lived outside of a two-parent family

during childhood was very small (n = 4). A medium effect size was calculated for

parental living arrangement and expressive parentification, indicating that if a larger

sample of individuals living outside of a two-parent home during childhood had been

obtained, a significant difference likely would have been found. While a medium effect

size was calculated for expressive parentification, the calculated effect size for

instrumental parentification was consistent with the null effect. To explain the findings in

the adult sample, the small number of participants who had lived outside of a two-parent

home must be considered. With such a small number of respondents, each participant's

individual responses contribute significantly to the overall scale scores. It is possible that

the four participants in the present study were required to care more for the emotional

than physical needs of their parent while growing up. One might also consider the

passage of time. For the four adult participants who lived outside of a two-parent home in

childhood, it is possible that memories of parentification experiences may have been

PARENTIFICATION 66

impacted by the time elapsed since the individual last lived at home. When scores from

such a small number of participants are analyzed, it is important to consider the

retrospective nature of the measure and its impact on the accuracy of reporting.

The present investigation also examined the relationship between parentification

scores and birth order. In the adult sample, significant group differences were found, with

those indicating youngest child status reporting lower mean expressive parentification

scores, and lower mean instrumental parentification scores than individuals with middle

and oldest child status. In a 2007 study of children living in urban poverty, McMahon and

Luther found oldest child status to be significantly related to responsibility to care for the

mother. Arguably, in circumstances where an adult is unable or chooses not to carry out a

parental role, familial responsibilities are more likely to fall to a middle or oldest child,

who is older and likely, more capable to handle the given tasks. Thus, the adult results in

the present analysis are theoretically sound. In the adolescent sample however, significant

group differences for birth order were not found. In both the adolescent and adult sample,

individuals with only child status were not found to have significantly higher

parentification scores than those with siblings. These findings conflict with McMahon

and Luthar (2007) who found a significant relationship between only child status and

responsibility to care for the mother. The inconsistent findings in the present analyses

may be explained in part by the small proportion of individuals in the adult and

adolescent samples who indicated only child status (n = 3; n = 9 respectively); however,

in both the adult and adolescent samples, calculated effect sizes were consistent with the

null effect.
 ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- - -- - - - -

P ARENTIFICATION 67

In the analyses used to examine parentification scores and family structure

(familial living arrangements and birth order), it is important to note that due to unequal

sample sizes in each group, the equal variance assumption in ANOVA was violated.

Although, theorists suggest that results from ANOVA can be considered valid when

distributional assumptions are violated (Zar, 1996), results from these analyses should be

interpreted with caution.

In an effort to bring further delineation to the construct of parentification, both

instrumental and expressive parentification in the adult sample, and overall

parentification scores in the adolescent sample, were quantitatively examined in relation

to theoretically relevant constructs. Consistent with the study hypotheses, parentification

scores in both FRS sub scales in the adult sample, and FRS-Y scores in the adolescent

sample were positively correlated to perceptions of family enmeshment and negatively

correlated to perceptions of family cohesion. Chase (1999) hypothesized that the blurred

generational boundaries in circumstances of childhood parentification equate to family

enmeshment. The present findings provide support for this hypothesis. Through the

instrumental and emotional role reversals associated with parentification, boundaries in

the family system become more permeable and diffuse, resulting in family enmeshment.

Conversely, the negative statistical relationship found between parentification and family

cohesion finds support for the study hypothesis that the adult-child role reversal results in

a lack of shared support and reciprocal helpfulness within the family system. The present

findings provide quantitative evidence to support clinical theorizing that parentification

takes place within enmeshed family systems. The current investigation provides
 - -- ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P ARENTIFICATION 68

empirical evidence ofthe lack of individual differentiation within family system in

childhood parentification, furthering our understanding of the construct.

Parentification was also examined in relation to perceptions of maternal and

paternal care and control. As predicted, instrumental and expressive parentification in the

adult sample, and overall parentification in the adolescent sample, was found to have a

negative relationship with child ratings of maternal and paternal care. These results

suggest that, as parentification experiences increase, parents are perceived to have

provided less care and concern for their children. For both samples, when compared to

the correlation between paternal care and parentification, the magnitude of the

relationship between maternal care and parentification was greater, suggesting that

parentification scores are more strongly related to perceptions of maternal care than

perceptions of paternal care. This finding suggests a greater linkage between

parentification and maternal care than parentification and paternal care, and may be

explained in part by traditional familial roles. Parentification involves both physical and

emotional care of the family. Statistics suggest that in general, mothers take on a greater

proportion of care taking roles in the family (Zukewich, 2003). It follows then that

maternal care and warmth are more intertwined with the parentification experience than

that of paternal care.

Perceptions of maternal and paternal control versus autonomy were also examined

in relation to parentification. Contrary to the study hypotheses, in the adult sample, both

instrumental and expressive parentification demonstrated low and moderate positive

relationships with perceptions of maternal and paternal control, finding that participants

with high parentification scores perceive their parents to be more controlling. Similar
PARENTIFICATION 69

results were found in the adolescent sample. As the familial responsibilities component of

parentification require the child to assume an adult role, it was expected that

parentification would be associated with perceptions of autonomy and less control from

parents. However, the direction of relationships in the present study indicates that the

roles and tasks performed in circumstances of childhood parentification may be more

directed and controlled by parents. Although further investigation into this finding is

required, results from these analyses suggest that in circumstances of parentification,

parents may be to an extent dictating to children the types of tasks to be performed.

In the adult sample, the relationship between instrumental and expressive

parentification and physical and emotional neglect was examined. As predicted, both

subdirnensions of parentification were found to be related to perceptions of childhood

physical and emotional neglect. Childhood parentification has been previously discussed

as a form of child neglect (Hooper, 2007b); however, the relationship between the two

constructs had never been empirically examined. Based on previously established clinical

cut-off scores for non-clinical samples (Bernstein & Fink, 1998), adult participants were

classified into two groups, those who had experienced at least mild forms of childhood

neglect and those who had not. Individuals with a history of physical neglect reported

higher levels of instrumental parentification, but not higher levels of expressive

parentification when compared to the full sample. Conversely, participants with

emotional neglect history reported significantly higher levels of expressive, but not

instrumental parentification. The results of the analyses are consistent with the caregiving

roles performed in circumstances of instrumental and expressive parentification.

Instrumental parentification requires the child to care for the physical needs of the family,
PARENTIFICATION 70

whereas expressive parentification requires the child to care for the emotional needs of

the family. It is thus logical that individuals who experienced childhood physical neglect

report having cared for the physical needs of the family, while those who experienced

childhood emotional neglect report having cared for the emotional needs of the family.

Findings on the significant relationship between parentification and forms of childhood

neglect in the present analyses provide evidence that parentification may constitute a

form of child neglect. The present study additionally sought to examine the unique

contributions of neglect and parentification to the outcomes of depression and anxiety.

However, as instrumental and expressive parentification in the adult sample was

unrelated to maladaptive psychological outcomes, this research question could not be

addressed.

The magnitude of the correlations between the selected family-relevant constructs

and instrumental and expressive parentification in the adult sample, and overall

parentification scores in the adolescent sample, help to further define the construct of

parentification. The small and moderate values of these correlations indicate that

parentification, while significantly related to theoretically relevant variables, is a distinct

construct. The findings suggest that the construct of childhood parentification is defining

a phenomenon that is unique from perceptions of childhood physical and emotional

neglect, decreased parental care, parental autonomy, family enmeshment and decreased

family cohesion. Childhood parentification appears to be a construct that contains

discrete elements, and is not fully subsumed by other family functioning constructs.
P ARENTIFICATION 71

Limitations

Limitations of the studies must be considered. First, the present analyses

examined childhood parentification in adolescent, undergraduate, and adult populations.

While comparisons were made throughout the analyses between the three samples, each

group was administered a different measure to assess self-reported parentification. To

obtain parentification ratings the adolescent sample completed the FRS-Y, a Likert

measure which provides an overall parentification score containing elements of both

instrumental and expressive parentification; the adult sample completed the FRS, a

retrospective Likert measure which provides separate instrumental and expressive

parentification subscale scores; and the undergraduate sample completed the PQ, a

retrospective true-false measure that provides an overall parentification score assessing

both instrumental and expressive parentification. Although the FRS was developed in

part from the earlier PQ (Jurkovic, Thirkield, & Morrell, 2001), and the FRS-Y was

developed in part from the FRS (Jurkovic et al., 2005), all three scales contain some

distinct items designed to assess parentification, and therefore conceivably, each measure

could provide a distinct, yet valid, encapsulation of childhood parentification.

Consequently, direct comparisons among findings in the three groups must be interpreted

with caution.

A second limitation concerns the use of single, self-report measures to assess

parentification. In each sample, only one self-report measure was used to obtain ratings of

childhood parentification. Consequently, scores were based on participant perceptions of

parentification, and not necessarily objective reality. Additionally, given the diffuse

spectrum of tasks encompassing parentification roles, the use of only one parentification
P ARENTIFICATION 72

measure per sample may have precluded the assessment of some parentification

experiences. To address this limitation in future studies, use of a multi-method, multi-

informant assessment of childhood parentification may be considered. For instance,

future studies may wish to assess parentification through the use of both questionnaire

and semi-structured interview, and may query both child and parent about the child's

care-taking roles in the family. Further limitations in the measurement of parentification

lie in the retrospective nature of childhood parentification in the undergraduate and adult

samples. Participants from these two groups were asked to reflect on specific tasks and

behaviors that had taken place many years prior to the study. Perceptions of adult role

taking in childhood may have been distorted by time and new experiences. As a result of

these concerns, the accuracy of parentification scores could not be verified.

A third limitation involves the use of a cross-sectional design to address the long-

term outcomes of childhood parentification. Although the present investigation was able

to assess outcomes of parentification in three independent samples with contrasting mean

age scores, firm conclusions cannot be made about the development and progression of

parentification outcomes over time. To validate preliminary findings in the present study,

which suggest that the maladaptive outcomes of parentification may decrease over time,

longitudinal assessments of childhood parentification must be conducted.

A fourth limitation concerns the low internal consistency of the LMLCI-internal

locus of control subscale in the adolescent sample (a = .56). While Study 1 found internal

locus of control significantly moderated the relationship between parentification and

outcome, Study 2 did not replicate the findings. Although internal locus of control was

unable to explain additional variance in the adolescent sample, this may be due to the
PARENTIFICATION 73

inadequate internal consistency of the measure. Previous studies have demonstrated the

protective nature of an internal locus of control orientation. Internal locus of control has

been associated with lower depression scores and better overall health outcomes (e.g.

Burger, 1984; Gale et al., 2008). In Study 1, the correlation between internal locus of

control and the outcome measures of depression and happiness were found to be stronger

for those with higher parentification scores than for those with lower scores. This

suggests that the protective nature of internal locus of control may be specific in some

way to the parentification experience, beyond its protective capacity for positive

psychological adjustment in a general sample. To appropriately and accurately interpret

the role of locus of control in the relationship between parentification and outcome, a

locus of control measure with good or excellent internal consistency must be utilized.

An additional consideration in the present investigation is the recruitment method

used to obtain participants in the adult sample (Study 2). Although efforts were made to

approach every available participant with a wait time over 20 minutes in the doctor's

office and blood collection waiting rooms, given the volume of people in each area, it is

possible that some individuals were not approached regarding study participation. As

well, participants in the adult sample were informed about the research study individually

by a research assistant, and asked if they would like to participate. Although a study

introduction script was used, the act of approaching potential participants directly may

have inadvertently introduced a slight selection bias into the sample. It is possible that

individuals who agree to research after being approached directly differ in some way

from those who do not. Additionally, it is conceivable that some unwilling participants

felt pressured to complete the questionnaires as a result of being directly approached by

PARENTIFICATION 74

the research assistant. If unwilling participants were completing questionnaires out of

perceived pressure, the given study measures may not have been completed accurately

and honestly by some individuals.

Similarly, biases may have been introduced in recruitment of the adolescent

sample. Adolescent participants required signed parental consent to take part in the study.

It is possible that parents having difficulties fulfilling their parental roles did not want

their child responding to questions about the family situation, and thus did not provide

consent for participation. The adolescent sample may have been slightly skewed toward

participants with fewer parental and familial issues.

Future Directions

On the basis of the present findings, several future directions must be considered.

First, the present investigation was one of few to examine parentification experiences in

adults outside of an undergraduate population. The majority of studies examining the

outcomes of childhood parentification examine the construct in adolescent or

undergraduate samples (e.g., Jurkovic et al., 2005; Peris et al., 2008). The present

investigation suggests, however, that outcomes of childhood parentification may differ

between young and middle-aged to older adults. As maladaptive psychological outcomes

were found for the adolescent and undergraduate, but not the adult sample, further

investigation into outcomes of childhood parentification in adult populations is

warranted. Additionally, although maladaptive psychological outcomes of parentification

were not found in the adult sample, the present investigation did not allow for the

determination of adaptive psychological outcomes. Thus, to gain a more complete

understanding of the divergent outcomes of parentification, further examination is needed

PARENTIFICATION 75

into the adaptive psychological outcomes ofparentification, particularly in middle-aged

and older adults.

A second consideration for future research involves the longitudinal assessment of

the outcomes of childhood parentification. The design of the present investigation did not

permit assessment of the course and progression of outcomes following childhood

parentification experiences. The interesting finding that parentification was associated

with maladaptive psychological outcomes in a younger, but not an older sample, points to

the need to study the course of parentification outcomes over time. Longitudinal

assessment would allow researchers to monitor participants' change and adaptation over

time, allowing for greater inferences into cause and effect relationships in the

parentification experience.

A further direction for future research involves the selection of samples for

examination. In the present analyses, general samples of participants were utilized in an

effort to capture a range of parentification experiences. As a result, the present

investigation has allowed for a more precise understanding of the construct of

parentification in the general population. However, it is not known how results from the

selected study variables may differ, or remain the same, in a population who had

experienced a greater degree of childhood parentification, such as those with parental

chronic illness or substance abuse disorder. Although such participants were identified in

the present investigation, and were found to have increased parentification scores, the

subset of participants was too small to conduct separate, meaningful analysis. In a

selected sample of children with parental HIV/AIDS, Stein et al. (1999) found gender

differences in parentification that were not found in the present general sample analyses.
P ARENTIFICATION 76

It would be of interest to examine the same study variables employed in the present

investigation in such a selected sample of participants to examine differences and

similarities at differing levels of parentification.

Contrary to the study hypothesis, parentification in the present investigation was

found to have a positive, albeit statistically non-significant, association with perceptions

of parental control. As theoretically parentification involves an adult-child role reversal

where the parent often assumes a complimentary child-like role, it is of interest that

ratings of parentification demonstrated a positive statistical relationship to ratings of

parental control. These findings suggest that the parentification experience may involve a

more directive relationship on the part of the parent than the current theoretical literature

discusses. Further research is needed to examine the role of parental control in the

experience of childhood parentification.

An aim of the current research was to examine the relationship between

perceptions of childhood neglect and childhood parentification and determine the unique

variance accounted for by each variable in relation to maladaptive psychological

outcomes. Due to ethical and recruitment considerations, neglect was not assessed in the

adolescent sample, leaving only the adult sample in which to fulfill the study aim.

However, maladaptive psychological outcomes were not found in the adult sample, and

thus the relationship between parentification, neglect, and maladjustment could not be

fully examined. Results from the present investigation indicate that parentification may

be a specific form of neglect. To enhance understanding of the outcomes of childhood

parentification, the unique contribution of each construct to psychological outcome

 -------- --- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - - -------

P ARENTIFICATION 77

variables needs to be assessed. To accomplish this, future studies may consider assessing

both neglect and parentification in a population with maladaptive adjustment scores.

Conclusions

The present research investigation had two specific aims, (1) to examine

psychological outcomes of parentification and identify a moderating psychological

variable to facilitate elucidation of its divergent outcomes, and (2) to examine

parentification quantifiably in relation to theoretically hypothesized family-relevant

variables. Concerning the first aim of the research, parentification was found to be related

to depression in the undergraduate sample, depression and anxiety in the adolescent

sample, and unrelated to depression or anxiety in the adult sample. These results provide

some evidence to suggest that maladaptive psychological effects of parentification may

lessen over time. Internal locus of control was proposed and tested as a potential

moderating variable in the relationship between parentification and outcome; however,

results from the analyses are inconclusive. Internal locus of control was found to

moderate the relationship between parentification and outcome in the undergraduate, but

not the adolescent sample. The inconsistent results may be attributed to the statistically

unreliable measure used to assess internal locus of control in the adolescent sample.

Further investigation with a more psychometrically sound instrument is required to reach

a clear conclusion on the moderating role of internal locus of control. If future studies

replicate findings from Study 1, internal locus of control may be considered a protective

factor in the relationship between parentification and outcome. Locus of control

orientation could then be examined in the treatment of individuals who are experiencing

maladaptive outcomes as a result of childhood parentification.

PARENTIFICATION 78

Concerning the second aim of the research, parentification was found to be

negatively related to family cohesion, positively related to family enmeshment,

negatively related to perceptions of maternal and paternal care, positively related to

perceptions of physical and emotional neglect, and positively, yet statistically non-

significantly, related to maternal and paternal control. Results from the present

investigation elucidate the family environment surrounding childhood parentification,

aiding in delineation of the construct. Generally, and from a child perspective, findings in

the general community sample indicate that parentification is found in mutually

unsupportive family systems, where physical and emotional needs are unmet, and parents

demonstrate reduced care for their children. Although similar notions of parentification

have been previously presented in theory-based literature, these relationships had not

previously been empirically tested. The present investigation also demonstrated support

for previous findings on parental substance use and parental chronic illness, supporting

the conception that parentification is more likely to occur in circumstances of parental

incapacitation.

The present research investigation makes a significant empirical contribution to

the childhood parentification literature. The demonstration of theoretically consistent

relationships between parentification and well-established constructs, such as neglect,

helps bring support and validity to the construct of parentification. Further, examination

ofthe nature and outcomes ofparentification in age groups across the life-span aids in the

development of a clear and concrete understanding of the construct.

P ARENTIFICATION 79

References

Adridge, J., & Becker, S. (1993). Children who care: Inside the world ofyoung carers.

Loughborough, U.K.: Department of Social Sciences,_Loughborough University.

Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R. P. (1998).

Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression

Anxiety and Stress Scales in clinical groups and a community sample.

Psychological Assessment, 10, 176-181. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.10.2.176

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes 50,248-287. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L

Barber, B. K., & Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different

constructs, different effects. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 58, 433-441.

doi:10.2307/353507

Barnett, B., & Parker, G. (1998). The parentified child: Early competence or childhood

deprivation? Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 3, 146-155.

doi: 10.1017/S 1360641798001695

Bernstein, D., & Fink, L. (1998). Manual for the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. New

York: The Psychological Corporation.

Bernstein, D.P., Stein, J. A., Newcomb, M.D., Walker, E., Pogge, D., Ahluvalia, T., ...

Zule, W. (2003). Development and validation of a brief screening version of the

Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Child Abuse and Neglect, 27, 169-190.

doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00541-0
P ARENTIFICATION 80

Bloom, B. L. (1985). A factor analysis of self-report measures of family functioning.

Family Process, 24,225-239. doi:l0.1111/j.l545-5300.1985.00225.x

Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., & Spark., G. M. (1973). Invisible loyalties: Reciprocity in

intergenerationalfamily therapy. Maryland: Harper & Row.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Volume 1: Attachment. New York: Basic

Books.

Burger, J. M. (1984). Desire for control, locus of control, and proneness to depression.

Journal ofPersonality, 52, 71-89. doi:10.1111/j.l467-6494.1984.tb0055l.x

Burnett, G., Jones, R. A., Bliwise N. D. & Ross, L. T. (2006). Family unpredictability,

parental alcoholism and the development of parentification. American Journal of

Family Therapy, 64, 181-189. Retrieved from http://www.tandf.co.uk/

joumals/titles/01926187.asp

Castro, D. M., Jones, R. A., Mirsalimi, H. (2004). Parentification and the impostor

phenomenon: An empirical investigation. American Journal ofFamily Therapy,

32,205-216. doi:10.1080/01926180490425676

Chase, N.D. (1999). Parentification: An overview oftheory, research, and societal issues.

InN. D. Chase (Eds.) Burdened children. Theory, research and treatment of

parentification (pp. 3-33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Chase, N.D., Deming, M.P., & Wells, M. C. (1998). Parentification, parental alcoholism

and academic status among young adults. American Journal ofFamily Therapy,

26, 105-114.doi:10.1080/01926189808251091
P ARENTIFICATION 81

Chorpita, B. F., Yim, L., Moffitt, C., Umemoto, L.A., & Francis, S. E. (2000).

Assessment of Symptoms ofDSM-IV anxiety and depression in children: a

revised child anxiety and depression scale. Behavior Research and Therapy, 38,

835-855. doi: 10.10 16/S0005-7967(99)00130-8

Cigoli, V., & Scabini, E. (2006). The family identity: Ties symbols and transitions. New

Jersey: Erlbaum.

Compas, B. E., Conner-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Harding Thomsen, A., & Wadsworth,

M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems,

progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87-

127. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.87

de Ross, R. L., Gullone, E., & Chorpita, B. F. (2002). The Revised Child Anxiety and

Depression Scale: A psychometric investigation with Australian youth. Behaviour

Change, 19, 90-101. doi:10.1375/bech.19.2.90

Earley, L., & Cushway, D. (2002). The parentified child. Clinical Child Psychology and

Psychiatry, 7, 163-178. doi:10.1177/1359104502007002005

Frazier, L. D., Newman, F. L., & Jaccard, J. (2007). Psychosocial outcomes in later life:

A multivariate model. Psychology and Aging, 22, 676-689. doi:l0.1037/0882-

7974.22.4.676

Gale, C. R., Batty, D. G., & Deary, I. J. (2008). Locus of control at age 10 years and

health outcomes and behaviors at age 30 years: The 1970 British cohort study.

Psychosomatic Medicine, 70, 397-403. Retrieved from http://www.ovid.com/

site/catalog/Journal/267.jsp
PARENTIFICATION 82

Henry, J. D. & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety

Stress Scales: Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical

sample. British Journal ofClinical Psy chology, 44, 227-239.

doi: 10.1348/0 14466505X29657

Hildyard, K. L., & Wolfe, D. A. (2002). Child neglect: Developmental issues and

outcomes. Child Abuse and Neglect, 26, 679-695. doi:10.1016/S0145-

2134(02)00341-1

Hooper, L. M., Marotta, S. A., & Lanthier, R. P. (2008). Predictors of growth and distress

following childhood parentification: A retrospective exploratory study. Journal of

Child and Family Studies, 17, 693-705. doi:10.1 007/s 10826-007-9184-8

Hooper, L. M . (2007a). The application of attachment theory and family systems theory

to the phenomena ofparentification. The Family Journal, 15, 217-223.

doi : 10.1177/1066480707301290

Hooper, L. M. (2007b). Expanding the discussion regarding parentification and its varied

outcomes: Implications for mental health research and practice. Journal ofMental

Health Counseling, 29, 322-337. Retrieved from http://amhca.metapress.com

/applhome/main.asp?referrer=default

Jacobvitz, D. B., & Bush, N. (1996). Reconstructions of family relationships: Parent-

child alliances, personal distress and self-esteem. Developmental Psychology, 32,

732-743. doi:10.1 037/0012-1649.32.4.732

Johnson, J. H., & Saarson, I. R. (1978). Life stress, depression and anxiety: Internal-

external control as a moderator variable. Journal ofPsychosomatic Research, 22,

205-208. doi:10.1 016/0022-3999(78)90025-9

P ARENTIFICATION 83

Jurkovic, G. J. (1997). Lost Childhoods: The plight of the parentified child. Philadelphia,

P A:Brunner/Mazel.

Jurkovic, G. J., Kuperminc, G. P., & Casey, S. (2000). Filial Responsibility Scale-Youth

(Available from Gregory J. Jurkovic at Department of Psychology, Georgia State

Univesity, MSC 2All55, 33 Gilmer St. SE Unit 2, Atlanta, GA, 30303-3080 or

gjurkovic@gsu. edu).

Jurkovic, G. J ., Kuperminc, G. P., Sarac, T., & Weisshar, D. (2005). Role of filial

responsibility in the post-war adjustment of Bosnian young adolescents. Journal

ofEmotionalAbuse, 5, 219-235. doi:10.1300/J135v05n04_03

Jurkovic, G. J., & Thirkield, A. (1999). Filial Responsibility Scale. (Available from

Gregory J. Jurkovic at Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, MSC

2A1155, 33 Gilmer St. SE Unit 2, Atlanta, GA, 30303-3080 or

gjurkovic@gsu. edu).

Jurkovic, G. J., Thirkield, A., Morrell, R. (2001 ). Parentification of adult children of

divorce: A multidimensional analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30,

245-257. Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/psychology/child+&+school+

psychology/journal/! 0964

Karpel, M.A. (1977). Intrapsychic and interpersonal processes in the parentification of

children. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and

Engineering, 38(1-B), 365.

PARENTIFICATION 84

Kelley, M. L., French, A., Bountress, K., Keefe, H. A., Schroeder, V., Steer, K., ...

Gurnienny, L. (2007). Parentification and family responsibility in the family of

origin of adult children of alcoholics. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 675-685.

doi:l0.1016/j.addbeh.2006.06.01 0

Kuperminic, G. P., Jurkovic, G. J., Casey, S. (2009). Relation of filial responsibility to

the personal and social adjustment of Latino adolescents from immigrant families.

Journal ofFamily Psychology, 23, 14-22. doi:10.1037/a0014064

Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept of

internal-external control. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 38, 377- 383.

Retrieved from http://www. informaworld. com/smpp/title-content=t77 565 3663

Manzi, C., Vignoles, V. L., Regalia, C., & Scabini, E. (2006). Cohesion and enmeshment

revisited: Differentiation, identity, and well-being in two European cultures.

Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 68,673-689. doi:10.1111/j.1741-

3 73 7 .2006.00282.x

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, 267-281. doi: 10.103 7/0002-

9432.77.2.267

Mika, P., Bergner, R. M., & Baum, M. C. (1987). The development of a scale for the

assessment ofparentification. Family Therapy, 3, 229-235.

Mineka, S., Watson, D., & Clark, L. (1998). Comorbidity of anxiety and unique polar

mood disorders. Annual Review ofPsychology, 49, 377-412. Retrieved from

http:/I arjoumals.annualreviews.org/loi/psych? cookieSet= 1

PARENTIFICATION 85

Minuchin, S., Montalvo, B., Guemey, B. G., Rosman, B. L., & Schumer, F. (1967).

Families of the slums: An exploration of their structure and treatment. New York:

Basic Books.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Moos, R. (1974). The social climate scales: An overview. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Nunn, G. D. (1988). Concurrent validity between the Nowicki-Strickland locus of control

scale and the state-trait anxiety inventory for children. Education and

Psychological Measurement, 48, 435-434. doi: 10.1177/0013164488482016

Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2 11d ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Parker, G. (1986). Validating an experiential measure of parental style: The use of a twin

sample. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 73, 22-27. doi: 10.1111/j.l600-

0447.1986.tb02660.x

Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British

Journal ofMedical Psychology, 52, 1- 10.

Paivio, S. C., & Cramer, K. M. (2004). Factor structure and reliability of the Childhood

Trauma Questionnaire in a Canadian undergraduate student sample. Child Abuse

and Neglect, 28, 889-904. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.01.011

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 ofFamily Psychology, 22, 633-642.

doi: 10.1037/a0012792
PARENTIFICATION 86

Presson, P. K., Clark, S.C., & Benassi, V. A. (1997). The Levenson locus of control

scales: Confirmatory factor analyses and evaluation. Social Behavior and

Personality, 25,93-104. doi:10.2224/sbp.l997.25.1.93

Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the

self: A two process model of perceived control. Journal ofPersonality and Social

Psychology, 42, 5-37. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.5

Rothbaum, F., Wolfer, J., & Visintainer, M. (1979). Coping behavior and locus of control

in children. Journal ofPersonality, 47, 118-135. doi:l0.1111/j.1467-

6494.1979.tb00618.x

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80

Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of

internal versus external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 43, 56-67. doi:10.1037/h0076301

Safford, S.M., Alloy, L. B., & Pieracci, A. (2007). A comparison of two measures of

parental behavior. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 375-384.

doi: 10.1007Is 10826-006-9092-3

Sessions, M. W. & Jurkovic, G. J. (1986). The Parenti.fication Questionnaire. (Available

from Dr. Gregory Jurkovic, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University,

Atlanta Georgia, 30303).

P ARENTIFICATION 87

Statistics Canada. (2001). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile 2001

(Catalogue no. 85-224-XIE). Retrieved from Canadian Center for Justice

Statistics www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/pdfs/fv-85-224-x200001 0-eng.pdf

Stein, J. A., Riedel, M., & Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (1999). Parentification and its impact

on adolescent children of parents with AIDS. Family Process, 38, 193-208.

doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1999.00193.x

Stein, J. A., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., & Lester, P. (2007). Impact ofparentification on

long-term outcomes among children of parents with HIV/AIDS. Family Process,

46, 317-333. doi:10.1111 /j.1545-5300.2007.00214.x

Tompkins, T. L. (2007). Parentification and maternal HIV infection: Beneficial role or

pathological burden? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 113-123.

doi: 10.1007Is 10826-006-9072-7

Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Alhersheim,L. (2000). Attachment

security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child

Development, 71 , 684-689. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00176

Weinberger D. A. (1997). Distress and self-restraint as measures of adjustment across the

life span: Confirmatory factor analysis in clinical and nonclinical samples.

Psy chological Assessment, 9, 132-135. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.9.2.132

Weinberger, D. A., & Schwartz, G. E. (1990). Distress and restraint as superordinate

dimensions of self-reported adjustment: A typological perspective. Journal of

Personality, 58, 381-417. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00235.x

PARENTIFICATION 88

Wells, M. & Jones, R. (2000). Childhood parentification and shame-proneness: A

preliminary study. American Journal ofFamily Therapy, 28, 19-27. Retrieved

from http://www.tandf.co.uk/joumals/titles/01926187.asp

Wilhelm, K., Niven, H., Parker, G., & Hadzi-Pavlovic, D. (2005). The stability of the

Parental Bonding Instrument over a 20-year period. Psychological Medicine, 35,

387-393. doi:10.1017/S0033291704003538

Zar, J.H. (1996). Biostatistical analysis (Third ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Zukewich, N. (2003). Unpaid informal caregiving (Report No. 11-008). Retrieved from

Canadian Social Trends Statistics Canada www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-

x/2003002/article/6622-eng.pdf
P ARENTIFICATION 89

Appendix A

Participant:

Parentification Questionnaire
The following statements are possible descriptions of experiences you may have had while growing
up. If a statement accurately describes some portion of your childhood experience, that is, the time
during which you lived at home with your family (including your teenage years), mark the statement as
true. If the statement does not accurately describe your experience, mark it as false.
True False

1. I rarely found it necessary to do other family members chores

- - - -CD ®
2. At times I felt I was the only one my mother/father could turn to CD ®
Members of my family hardly ever looked to me for advice CD @
4. In my family I often felt called upon to do more than my share CD ®
5. I often felt like an outsider in my family CD ®
6. I felt most vulnerable in my family when someone confided in me CD ®
7. It seemed as though there were enough problems at home without my CD ®
causing more
!'------
8. In my family I thought it best to let people work out their problems on
their own
~-------
9.
------------------------------ -----------~------
I often silently resented being asked to do certain kinds of jobs
10. In my family it seemed that I was usually the one who ended up being
responsible for most of what happened
---------------------------------
11. In my mind, the welfare of my family was my first priority CD
12. If someone in my family had a problem, I was rarely the one they could CD ®
turn to for help
13. I was frequently responsible for the physical care of some member of
m famil i.e. washing. feeding, dressin etc.
14. My family was not the kind in which people took sides CD ®
15.
---------------------------------
It often seemed that my feelings weren't taken into account in my family CD ®
PARENTIFICATION 90

16. I often found myself feeling down for no particular reason that I could CD @
think of

17. In my family there were certain family members I could handle better
CD ®
than anyone else

18. I often preferred the company of people older than me CD ®

19. I hardly ever felt let down by members of my family CD ®
20. I hardly ever got involved in conflicts between my parents G) ®
21. I usually felt comfortable telling family members how I felt CD ®
22. I rarely worried about people in my family CD @

As a child I was often described as mature for my age CD

24. In my family I often felt like a referee G) ®
25. In my family I initiated most recreational activities CD ®
26. It seemed as though family members were always bringing me their Q) ®
problems
My parents had enough to do without worrying about housework as well CD
28. In my family I often made sacrifices that went unnoticed by other family CD ®
members
29. My parents were very helpful when I had a problem CD ®
30. If a member of my family was upset, I would almost always become G) ®
involved in some way
31. I could usually manage to avoid doing housework Q) ®
32. I believe that most people understood me pretty well, particularly CD @
members of my family

33. As a child I wanted to make everyone in my family happy

34. My parents rarely disagreed on anything important

I often felt more like an adult than a child in my family

36. I was more likely to spend time with friends than with family members CD ®
Members of my family rarely needed me to take care of them (D. ®
PARENTIFICATION 91

38. I was very uncomfortable when things were not going well at home G) ®
39. All things considered', responsibilities were shared equally in my family CD ®
40. In my house I hardly ever did the cooking
I was very active in the management of my family's financial affairs
42. I was at my best in times of crisis
P ARENTIFICATION 92

Appendix 8

Participant:

Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control

Following is a series of attitude statements. Each represents a commonly held opinion. There are
no right or wrong answers. You will probably agree with some items and disagree with others.
We are interested in the extent to which you agree or disagree with such matters of opinion.
Read each statement carefully. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree using the
following responses:

1 = Strongly Agree
2 = Somewhat Agree
3 = Slightly Agree
4 = Slightly Disagree
5 = Somewhat Disagree ...
!:2 en ~ ~ en !:2

-... -
0 0
3 cE" cE" 3 0
6 = Strongly Disagree 0
::J CD
;:r ;:r CD ::J
(Q

-< :c
;:r -< -< :c;:r (Q

-<
)>
(Q
a )>
(Q
0
u;· a 0
u;·
)>
d;
... :g D» 0
u;· D»
CD
(Q
CD
CD
(Q
d;
CD
D»
(Q
...
(Q
CD
d; CD
CD

1. Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my CD ® ® 0 ® ®

ability.
2. To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental CD @ ® @ ® ®
hap enings.
3. I feel like what happens In my life is mostly determined by ill @ @ @ @ ®
powerful people.
4. Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on CD @ ® @ ® ®
how good a driver I am.
5. When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work. ®
6. Often there is no chance of protecting my personal interests CD @ ® @ ® ®
from bad luck happenings.
PARENTIFICATION 93

8. Although I might have good ability, I will not be given CD ® ® @ ® ®

leadership responsibility without appealing to those positions
of power.

9. How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am.

10. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen. GJ ® ® @ ® ®
11. My life Is chiefly controlled by powerful others.
12. Whether or not I get into a car accident is mostly a matter of CD ® ® @ ® ®
luck.
13. People like. myself have very little chance of protecting ou
personal interests when they conflict with those of strong
gressure groups.
14. It's not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because CD ® ® @ ® ®
many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune.

15. Getting what l want requires pleasing those people above me

16. Whether or not I get to be a leader depends on whether I'm G) @ ® @ ® ®
lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.

17.

18. I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life. CD ® ® @ ® ®

19. I am usually able to protect my personal interests.
20. Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on CD ® ® @ ® ®
the other driver.

22. In order to have my plans work, I make sure that they fit in CD ® ® @ ® ®
with the desires of people who have power over me.
My life is determined by my own actions.
24. It's chiefly a matter of fate whether or not I have a few friends CD ® ® @ ® ®
or many friend
 - - - - - - - - - -·- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -

PARENTIFICATION 94

Appendix C

Participant:

Weinberger Adjustment Inventory

The purpose of these questions is to understand what you are usually like or what you have usually felt,
not just during the past few weeks but over the past year or more. Please read each sentence carefully
and select the number that best describes you.

PART 1: For each sentence decide whether it is FALSE or mostly false for you; SOMEWHAT FALSE
(i.e., more False than true); SOMEWHAT TRUE (i.e., more true than false); or TRUE or mostly true for
you. If you can't really say it's more true or false, choose NOT SURE.

1 = False en
0
en
0
3
2 = Somewhat False
3 = Not Sure
4 = Somewhat True
"TI
I»
iii
<D
<D
~
=r
a
"TI
-... -
z
0
en
c:
<D
3
<D
~
=r
I»
-t
-t
2
<D

I»
iii 2
5 = True <D <D

1. I enjoy most of the things I do during the week. CD ® ® @ 5

2. There have been times when I said I would do one thing but did G) ® @ 0 ®
something else.
3. I often feel that nobody really cares about me the way I want them @ @
to.
4. Doing things to help other people is more important to me than CD ® ® @ ®
almost anything else.
I spend a lot of time thinking about things that might go wrong. CD
6. There are times when I'm not very proud of how well I've done G) ® ® 0 ®
something.
NQ matter what I'm doing, I usually have a good time.
8. I'm the kind of person who will try anything once, even if it's not safe. CD ® ® 0 ®

10. Some things have happened this year that I felt unhappy about at
the time.
P ARENTIFICATION 95

One in a while, I don't do something that someone asked me to do.

12. I can remember a time when I was so angry at someone that I felt G) ® ® @ ®
like hurting them.

I am answering these questions truthfully

14. In recent years, there have been a lot of times when I've felt G) ® ® @ ®
unhappy or down about things.

l usually think of myself as a happy person.

16. I have done things that weren't right and felt sorry about it later. CD ® ® @ ®
I usually don't let things upset me too much.
18. I can think of times when I did not feel very good about myself. CD ® ® @ ®
f should try harder to control myself when I'm having fu
20. I do things that are against the law more often than most people. CD ® ® @) ®
21. I really don't like myself very much'.
22. I usually have a great time when I do things with other people. G) ® ® @ ®
23. When I try something for the first time, I am always sure that I will be
good at it.
24. I never feel sad about things that happen to me. CD ® ® @ ®
I never act like I know more about something than l really do.
26. I often go out of my way to do things for other people. G) ® ® @ ®
27. I sometimes feet so bad about myself that I wish I were somebody
else.
28. I'm the kind of person who smiles and laughs a lot. G) ® ® @ ®
29. Once in awhile, I say bad things about people that I would not say in
front of them.
30. Once in awhile, I break a promise I've made. G) ® ® @ ®
31 Once In awhile, l get upset about something that I later see was no
that important.
32. Everyone makes mistakes at least once in awhile.

Most of the time: I really don't worry about things very much.
 ----- ~~~~---~~~----~~~~~----

PARENTIFICATION 96

34. I'm the kind of person who has a lot of fun. G) ® @ @) ®

35. I often feel like not trying any more because I can't seem to make
things better.

36. People who get me angry better watch out. G) ® @ @) ®

37. There have been times when I did not finish something because t
spent too much time "goofing off'.
38. I worry too much about things that aren't important. (i) ® ® @) ®
There have been times when J didn't let people know about
something I did wrong.
40. I am never unkind to people I don't like. G) ® @ @ ®
41. I sometimes give up doing something because I don't think I'm very
good at it.
42. I often feel sad or unhappy. G) ® @ @) ®
Once in awhile, I say things that are not completely true.
44. I usually feel I'm the kind of person I want to be. G) ® ® @ ®
I have never met anyone- younger than I am.

PART II: The questions in Part II relate to how often you think, feel, or act a certain way. Again, we
want to know what is usual for you even if it hasn't happened in the past couple of days or last few
weeks. After you read each sentence carefully, please choose how often it is true.

1 = Almost Never
2 = Not Often
3 = Sometimes
4 = Often
)>
30
!!1.
-g -"'
z
0
en
0
3
3"
0
~

"'
::I
)>
3
0
!!1.
5 = Almost Always
z
"'...
<
"' "'
::I
Ul
)>
i"
I»
"' '<
Ul

46. I feel I can do things as well as other people can. CD ® @ @ ®

47. I think about other people's feelings before I do something they
might not like.
48. I do things without giving them enough thought. CD ® @ @ ®
iJ
~
• ~ • f -r I ._::, <.,I <,.! I;. .. ~ ', 'I , ~I • 1 ' ' 0 ' ,,l .o I~ I '~t ·~ ,,;r- :~
"' · \~ '-.· , 1 - •' .• 1 •1,' : ~.t 1· · ' .. ·(·" . .."! ..,.... \ , 1~,·•" ,t..•·.~ ~"r~,U,••\it •
0 '"' \ ,' , .. > • •' ,' ' • • , ~. , ~ , . ,' ' , •. ,' •
1
;• "'> f _, 1 ~ ~·~ .. I') • ~ .,..•', ·!" •I
PARENTIFICATION 97

When I have t e chance. I take things I want that don't really belong
to me.
50. If someone tries to hurt me, I make sure I get even with them. CD ® ® @ ®
51. I enjoy doing things for other people, even when I don't receive
anything in return.
52. I feel afraid if I think someone might hurt me. CD ® ® @ ®
53. I get into such a bad mood that I feel like just sitting \~round and
doing nothing.
54. I become "wild and crazy" and do things other people might not like. CD ® ® @ ®
55. I do things that are really not fair to people I don't care about
56. I will cheat on something if I know no one will find out. CD ® ® @ ®
57. When I'm doing something for fun (for example, partying, acting
silly), I tend to get carried away and go too far.
58. I feel very happy. CD ® ® @ ®
59. I make sure that doing what I want will not cause problems for other
people.
60. I break laws and rules I don't agree with. CD ® 0) @ ®
61. r feel at least a little upset when people point out things I have done
62. CD ® ® @ ®
63. I like to do new and different things that many people would consider
weird or not really safe.
64. I get nervous when I know I need to do my best (on a job, team, CD ® ® @ ®
etc . .
65. Before I do something, l think about how it will affect the people
around me.
66. If someone does something I really don't like, I yell at them about it. CD ® ® @ ®
67. People can depend on me to do what I know I should.

68. I lost my temper and "let people have it" when I'm angry. CD ® ® @ ®
69. I feel so down and unhappy that nothing makes me feel much better.
70. In recent years, I have felt more nervous or worried about things CD ® ® @ ®
PARENTIFICATION 98

than I have needed to.

I do things that I know really aren't right.

2

72. I say the first thing that comes into my mind without thinking enough CD ® ® @ ®
about it.

73. I pick on people I don't like

74. I feel afraid something terrible might happen to me or somebody I CD ® ® @ ®
care about.

75. I feel a little down when I don't cfo as well as I thought I would.
76. If people I like do things without asking me to join them, I feel a little G) ® ® @ ®
left out.
I try very hard not to hurt other people's feelings
78. I feel nervous or afraid that things won't work out the way I would like CD ® ® @ ®
them to.
I stop and think things through before I ad.
80. I say something mean to someone who has upset me. · G) ® ® @ ®
81. I make sure I stay out of trouble.
82. I feel lonely. CD ® ® @ ®
83. I feel that I am really good at things I try to do.
84. When someone tries to start a fight with me, I fight back. CD ® ® @ ®
PARENTIFICATION 99

Appendix D

Undergraduate Demographic Form

Please circle the appropriate response and fill in the blank spaces accordingly.
Your responses will remain anony mous.

1. Are you an only child? Yes No

IfYes, go to Question 2.

If No, how many siblings do you have? 1 2 3 other- -- - - -

Are you the:

oldest child middle child youngest child

2. Living at home, would you say that one or both of your parents has or had:

i) Problems with alcohol and/or drugs Yes No

If yes, which of your parents had problems with alcohol and/or drugs?

mother father both parents

ii) A chronic debilitating illness (mental or physical) Yes No

If yes, which of your parents had a chronic illness?

mother father both parents

3. If you answered yes to either question in number two, approximately how old were
you (in years) when this experience began?

Approximately how long did this experience last (in years)? _ _ _ _ _ _ __

PARENTIFICATION 100

Demographic Form (continued)

4. Children live in many different living arrangements. Which statement below best
describes your living situation?

a. My mother and father live together and I live with them

b. My mother and father do not live together and I live mostly or only with my
mother
c. My mother and father do not live together and I live mostly or only with my
father
d. My mother and father do not live together and I spend about the same time
living with each
e. I do not live with my mother or father but I live with my

5. What is your gender? Male Female

6. How old are you (in years)? _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _

P ARENTIFICATION 101

Appendix E

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

The purpose of an informed consent form is to ensure that you, as the participant, understand the purpose of the study as
well as the nature of your involvement.

Research Title: Psychosocial variables underlying the relationship between childhood parentification and adjustment in
early adulthood: An exploratory study.

Research personnel: For questions about this study please contact Kristen Williams (Department of Psychology,
Memorial University ofNewfoundland, 709-737-3436) or Dr. Sarah Francis (Department of Psychology, Memorial
University of Newfoundland, 709-737-4897). The proposal for this research has been approved by the Interdisciplinary
Committee on Ethics in Human Research at Memorial University of Newfoundland (ICEHR). Should you have any ethical
concerns about the research (such as the way you have been treated or your rights as a participant), you may contact the
Chairperson of the ICEHR at icehr@mun.ca or by telephone at 737-8368.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to provide insight into how childhood parentification experiences influence
functioning and adjustment in adulthood, and to examine how different psychosocial variables impact this relationship.

Task requirements: This study will involve you completing a series of five paper and pencil questionnaires, followed by a
short, anonymous demographics form.

Duration: This study should take no longer than one hour to complete.

Potential risks: You are under no obligation to continue the study if you experience discomfort or anxiety during any part
of it, or if you feel uncomfortable to do so.

Benefits: Your participation in this study will be contributing toward the current body of literature on outcomes associated
with childhood parentification.

Anonymity and confidentiality: The data collected in this study are coded with a number that is not associated with your
name and therefore all data are anonymous. The data will be used only by researchers associated with this project for the
purpose of research publications, conference presentations, or teaching material. To ensure anonymity, please do not write
your name anywhere on the questionnaires. As well, the informed consent forms will be kept separate from your
questionnaires once returned. All informed consent forms will be stored confidentially in a locked filing cabinet. Your
professor will only be made aware of your participation in this study at the end of the term after all grading has taken
place.

Right to withdraw: Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. At any point during the study you have the right
to not answer any question or to withdraw with no penalty whatsoever. You will not lose your 2% participation bonus
marks if you choose to not complete the study.

Signatures: I have read the above description and I understand that the data in this study will be used in research
publications, conference publications, or for teaching purposes. My signature indicates that I agree to participate in this
study.

Participant's name: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Participant's signature: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
PARENTIFICATION 102

Appendix F

Measures Used in Study 2

Measure Adult Adolescent

Filial Responsibility Scale-

Adult Form (Jurkovic &
Thirkield, 1999)

Filial Responsibility Scale -

Youth Form (Jurkovic et al.,
2000)

Depression, Anxiety, Stress

Scales-21 (Antony et al. ,
1998)

Revised Child Anxiety and

Depression Scale (Chorpita
et al. , 2000)

Parental Bonding
Instrument (Parker et al. ,
1979)

Family Functioning Scale

(Bloom, 1985)

Childhood Trauma
Questionnaire- Short Form
(Bernstein et al. , 2003)

Levenson Multidimensional
Locus of Control Inventory
(Levenson, 1974)

Demographic Form
P ARENTIFICATION 103

Appendix G

Participant:

Filial Responsibility Scale -Adult

The following 30 statements are descriptions of experiences you may have had as a child growing-up in
your family. Because each person's experiences are unique, there are no right or wrong answers. Just try
to respond with the rating that fits best.

C/J
q C/J
0 q
1 = Strongly Disagree ::l
-·
0
t::l z
->
(]Q ::l
2 = Disagree ..z Vl
......
~ > (]Q
...... ~
~ '<
3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree
4 = Agree
~
-·
t::l
Vl ~
~
::r-
...,
~
~
~

~
~
5 = Strongly Agree ~
~
~

1. I did a lot of the shopping (e.g., for groceries or clothes) for my 1 2 3 4 5

family.

2. At times I felt I was the only one my mother or father could turn to. 1 2 3 4 5

I helped my brothers or sisters a lot with their homework. 1 2 3 4 5

3.
Even though my parents meant well, I couldn' t really depend on them 1 2 3 4 5
4. meet my needs.

s. In my family, I was often described as being mature for my age. I 2 3 4

I was frequently responsible for the physical care of some member 1 2 3 4 5

6. of my family (e.g., washing, feeding, or dressing him or her).

8. I worked to help make money for my family. 1 2 3 4 5

9 1 2 3-
PARENTIFICATION 104

~~ ' ' • 1 ' ~ • • ': '~ ' ' ' ' ' ' J •' ' ~ ' I 4ft ·~:t>•

I often felt let down by members of my family. 1 2 3 4 5

10.
In my family I o en made sacrifices that went unnoticed. I 3 4 5

It seemed like family members were always bringing me their 1 2 3 4 5

12. problems.

4 5

If a member of my family were upset, I usually didn't get involved. 1 2 3 4 5

3 4 5

In my house I rarely did the cooking. 1 2 3 4 5

16.
My parents often tried to get me to take 4 5

Even when my family did not need my help, I felt very responsible 1 2 3 4 5
18. for them.

Sometimes it seemed that I was more responsible than my parents 1 2 3 4 5

20. were.

Members of my family understood me pretty well. 2 3 4 5

My parents expected me to help discipline my siblings. 1 2 3 4 5

22.
My parents often criticized IllY efforts to help out at orne.
23
I often felt that my family could not get along without me. 1 2 3 4 5
24.
For some reason it was hard for me. to trust my parents. 5

I often felt caught in the middle of my parents' conflicts. 1 2 3 4 5

26.

lT. z 3 4 5
PARENTIFICATION 105

28. In my family, I often gave more than I received. 1 2 3 4 5

It was hard sometimes to keep up in school because of my. 3 4 5

responsibilities at home.

30. I often felt more like an adult than a child in my family. 1 2 3 4 5

P ARENTIFICATION 106

Appendix H

Participant:

Filial Responsibility Scale -Youth

The following statements are descriptions of experiences you may have in your family. Because
Each person's experiences are unique, there are no right or wrong answers. Just try to respond with
the rating that fits best. Please respond to every statement

1 = Not at all true

2 = Slightly true
en
3 = Somewhat true z

--- - -- -<-
0
0 ~ 3
4 = Very true Q) IC" CD
~ <
=r =r

-
CD
!!:!.. -< Q)

....
c:
....
c:
....
c: 2
CD CD CD CD

I do a lot of the shopping for groceries or clothes for my family. 1 2 3

2. At times I feel I am the only one my mother or father can ask for help.
1 2 3 4

3. In my family I am often asked to do more than my share.

1 2 3 4

4. I often help my brother(s) or sister(s) with their homework.

1 2 3 4

5. People in my family often ask me for help.

1 2 3 4

6. Even though my parents care about me, I cannot really depend on them
to meet my needs. 1 2 3 4

7. My parents tell me that I act older than my age.

1 2 3 4

8. It often seems that my feelings don' t count in my family.

1 2 3 4

9. I work to help make money for my family.

1 2 3

10. I often try to keep the peace in my family.

1 2 3 4

11. I feel like people in my family disappoint me.

1 2 3 4
12 It' s hard sometimes to keep up in school because of my duties at home. 1 2 3 4
PARENTIFICATION 107

13. No one in my family sees how much I give up for them.

1 2 3 4

14. It seems like people in my family are always telling me their problems.
1 2 3 4

15. I often do the laundry in my family. 4

1 2 3

16. If someone in my family is upset, I try to help in some way.

1 2 3 4

17. My parents are very helpful when I have a problem.

1 2 3

18. In my house I often do the cooking.

1 2 3 4

19. When my parents fight, they try to get me to help them. 4

1 2 3

20. I feel like I have to take care of my family.

1 2 3 4

21. My parents often ask me to care for my brother(s) or sister(s). 2 3 4

1

22. I do a lot of the work in the house or yard. 4

1 2 3

23. Sometimes it seems like I am more responsible than my parents are. 2 3

1

24. My parents often criticize my attempts to help out at home.

1 2 3 4

25. For some reason it is hard for me to trust my parents. 2 3 4

1

26. My parents often ask me to help my brother(s) or sister(s) with their

problems. 1 2 3 4

27. I often do a lot of the chores at home. 2

1 3

28. I often feel caught in the middle of my parents' conflicts.

1 2 3 4

29. My parents often expect me to take care of myself. 2 3

1

30. My parents often talk bad to me about each other.

1 2 3 4

31. In my family, I often give more than I receive.

1 2 3 4

32. My parents give me the things I need like clothes, food, and school
1 2 3 4
supplies.
- - - - - - ----- - · - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --

PARENTIFICATION 108

Appendix I

Participant:

Depression Anxiety Stress Scale - 21

Please read each statement and circle a number 0, 1, 2 or 3 that indicates how much the statement
applied to you over the past week. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time
on any statement.

-t
0
I»
0 = Did not apply to me at all n
0
1 = Applied to me to some degree, or some of the time -t
:::1
Ul

2 = Applied to me to a considerable degree, or a good part of time 0 a:

C1)
Ul
0 iil
3 = Applied to me very much, or most of the time 3C1) CT <

--
C1)
z0 iD
c.. c.. -<
I»
C1)
cc
C1)
cc 3
Cil ....
C1)
c
n
!!!.. C1) C1) :::r

1. I found it hard to wind down. 0 1 2

2. I was aware of dryness of my mouth. 0 1 2 3

3. I couldn't seem to experience any positive feeling at all. 0

4. I experienced breathing difficulty (e.g., excessively rapid breathing,
0 1 2 3
breathlessness in the absence of physical exertion).
5. I found it difficult to work up the initiative to do things. 0 1
6. I tended to over-react to situations. 0 1 2 3

7. I experienced trembling (e.g., in the hands). 0 1 2 3

8. I felt that I was using a lot of nervous energy. 0 1 2 3

9. I was worried about situations in which I might panic and make a fool
0 1 2
of myself.
10. I felt that I had nothing to look forward to. 0 1 2 3

11. I found myself getting agitated. 0 1

12. I found it difficult to relax. 0 1 2 3

13. I felt down-hearted and blue. 0 1 2

PARENTIFICATION 109

14. I was intolerant of anything that kept me from getting on with what I
0 1 2 3
was doing.

15. I felt I was close to panic. 0 1 2 3

16. I was unable to become enthusiastic about anything.

0 1 2
17. I felt I wasn't worth much as a person. 0 1 2
18. I felt that I was rather touchy. 0 1 2 3
19. I was aware of the action of my heart in the absence of physical
0 1 2 3
exertion (e.g., sense of heart rate increase, heart missing a beat).
20. I felt scared without any good reason. 0 1 2 3

21. I felt that life was meaningless. 0 1 2 3

---------------

PARENTIFICATION 110

Appendix J

Participant:

Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale

Please put a circle around the number that shows how often each of these things
happen to you. There are no right or wrong answers.

1 = Never
2 = Sometimes
3 = Often
4 = Always en
0

zCD
...<
CD
-
3
CD

3"
CD
Ill
0
;:I!
CD
::::J
~
~
II>
'<
Ill

1. I worry about things. 1 2 3 4

2. I feel sad or empty.

1 2 3 4
;

3. When I have a problem, I get a funny feeling in my stomach.

1 2 3 4 ,,

4. I worry when I think I have done poorly at something.

1 2 3 4

s. I would feel afraid of being on my own at home.

1 2 3 4

6. Nothing is much fun anymore.

1 2 3 4

7. I feel scared when I have to take a test.

1 l 3 4
,.
8. I feel worried when I think someone is angry with me.
1 2 3 4

9. I worry about being away from my parents.

1 2 3 4
r·'

10. I get bothered by bad or silly thoughts or pictures in my mind.

1 2 3 4

11. I have trouble sleeping.

1 2 3 4
PARENTIFICATION 111

12. I worry that I will do badly at my school work.

1 2 3 4

13. I worry that something awful will happen to someone in my

family. 1 2 3 4

14. I suddenly feel as ifl can't breathe when there is no reason for
this. 1 2 3 4

15. I have problems with my appetite.

1 2 3 4

16. I have to keep checking that I have done things right (like the
switch is off, or the door is locked). 1 2 3 4

17. I feel scared if I have to sleep on my own.

1 2 3 4 '

18. I have trouble going to school in the mornings because I feel

nervous or afraid. 1 2 3 4

I have no energy for things.

19. . ~ 1 2 3 4

20. I worry I might look foolish.

1 2 3 4

21. I am tired a lot.

1 2 3 4

22. I worry that bad things will happen to me.

1 2 3 4

23. I can't seem to get bad or silly thoughts out of my head. 1 2 3 4

24. When I have a problem, my heart beats really fast.
1 2 3 4

25. I cannot think clearly.

1 2 3 4

26. I suddenly start to tremble or shake when there is no reason for

this. 1 2 3 4

27. I worry that something bad will happen to me.

1 2 3 4

28. When I have a problem, I feel shaky.

1 2 3 4

29. I feel worthless.

1 2 3 4

30. I worry about making mistakes. 1 2 3 4

P ARENTIFICATION 112

31. I have to think of special thoughts (like numbers or words) to

stop bad things from happening. 1 2 3 4

32. I worry what other people think of me. 2 3 4

33. I am afraid of being in crowded places (like shopping centers,

the movies, buses, busy playgrounds). 1 2 3 4

34. All of a sudden, I feel really scared for no reason at all.

1 2 3 4

35. I worry about what is going to happen.

1 2 3 4

36. I suddenly become dizzy or faint when there is no reason for

this. 1 2 3 4

37. I think about death.

1 2 3 4
I feel afraid if I have to talk in front of my class.
1 2 3 4

39. My heart suddenly starts to beat too quickly for no reason.

1 2 3 4

40. I feel like I don't want to move.

1 2 3 4

41. I worry that I will suddenly get a scared feeling when there is
1 2 3 4
nothing to be afraid of.

42. I have to do some things over and over again (like washing my
hands, cleaning or putting things in a certain order). 1 2 3 4

43. I feel afraid that I will make a fool of myself in front of

people. 1 2 3 4

44. I have to do some things in just the right way to stop bad
things from happening. 1 2 3 4

45. I worry when I go to bed at night.

1 2 3 4

46. I would feel scared if I had to stay away from home overnight. 1 2 3 4

47. I feel restless. 1 2 3 4

PARENTIFICATION 113

Appendix K

Participant:

Parental Bonding Instrument- Mother Form

This questionnaire lists various attitudes and behaviours ofparents. As you remember
your MOTHER in your first 16 years circle the most appropriate response next to
each question.

.....
.....
~
~
0
&:::
0
<
0
~ 0.. 0.. ~
.... .,
0 .,
0
c
~
tl)
~ ;- 0 2..
1 = Very Like ~
'-<" '-<" ~
2 = Moderately Like .....
t""' cp 0

3 = Moderately Unlike "'

0 ...-
~
0
4 = Very Unlike

1. Spoke to me in a warm and friendly voice. 1 2 3 4

2. Did not help me as much as I needed. 1 2 3 4

3. Let me do those things I liked doing. 1 2 3 4

4. Seemed emotionally cold to me. 1 2 3 4

5. Appeared to understand my problems and worries. 1 2 3

6. Was affectionate to me. 1 2 3 4

8. Did not want me to grow up. 1 2 3 4

P ARENTIFICATION 114

1 2 3 4
10. Invaded my privacy.

11. Enjoyed talking things over with me

12. Frequently smiled at me. 1 2 3 4

3 4

14. Did not seem to understand what I needed or wanted. 1 2 3 4

[et me decide things for mysel

16. Made me feel I wasn't wanted. 1 2 3 4

18. Did not talk with me very much. 1 2 3 4

Tried to make me feel dependent on 1

1 3 4
20. Felt I could not look after myself unless she was around.

Gave me as much freedom as I wanted.

22. Let me go out as often as I wanted.

23. Was Qverprotective of me. 3 4

1 2 3 4
24. Did not praise me.

25. Let me dress In any way I pleased.

P ARENTIFICATION 115

Participant:

Parental Bonding Instrument- Father Form

This questionnaire lists various attitudes and behaviours ofparents. As you remember
y our FATHER in your first 16 years circle the most appropriate response next
to each question.

1 = Very Like
2 = Moderately Like <
(!)
3:::
0
3::
0
<
(!)

~ 0.. 0.. ~
3 = Moderately Unlike r ..,
(!)
..,
(!)
c:I
~
~
4 = Very Unlike ~
(!) ~
'<"' '<"' ~
(!)
r c:I
~
(!)
~
(!)

1. Spoke to me in a warm and friendly voice. 1 2 3 4

2. Did not help me as much as I needed. 1 2 3 4

Let me do those things I liked doing. 1 2 3 4

4. Seemed emotionally cold to me. 1 2 3 4

5. Appeared to understand my problems and worries. 1 2 3 4

6. Was affectionate to me. 1 2 3 4

7. Like<l me to make my own decisions. 1 3 4

8. Did not want me to grow up. 1 2 3 4

Invaded my privacy. 1 2 3 4

Enjoyed talking t ings over wit ma. 1 2' 3 4

P ARENTIFICATION 116

k. J • • • ,• • -· • • • • •• • •

12. Frequently smiled at me. 1 2 3 4

14. Did not seem to understand what I needed or wanted. 1 2 3 4

Let me decl e things for myself.

16. Made me feel I wasn't wanted. 1 2 3 4

ould make me fee better when I was upse

18. Did not talk with me very much. 1 2 3 4

20 . Felt I could not look after myself unless she was around. 1 2 3 4

21.

22 . Let me go out as often as I wanted. 2 3 4

25. Let me dress n any way I pleased.

P ARENTIFICATION 117

Appendix L

Participant:

Family Functioning Scale

Please select the response that best describes your family while you were living at home.

1. Very Untrue for My Family

2. Fairly Untrue for My family

3. Fairly True for My Family <

0
"T1
$»
"T]
!:?. <
0
~
:r :::!.. ~
c '<" '< ....,
4. Very True for My Family c::s
::s
2 ..,...... ~
0
2
0
0 t:
0

1. Family members really helped and supported one another. 1 2 3 4

2. 1 2 3 4
Family members found it hard to get away from each other.

3. There was a feeling of togetherness in our family. 1 2 3 4

4. Family members felt guilty if they wanted to spend some time 1 2 3 4

alone.

5. We really got along well with each other. 1 2 3 4

6.
1:

8. It seemed like there was never any place to be alone in our

house. 1 2 3 4
PARENTIFICATION 118

It was difficult for family members to take time away from the 1 2 3 4
family.
P ARENTIFICAT ION 119

AppendixM

Participant:

Childhood Trauma Questionnaire

Please answer the following questions about the family you lived with while
you were growing up.

1 = Never True
2 = Rarely True
3 =Sometimes True
4 = Often True
C/)
0 <
CD
zCD
-
:::0
5 = Very Often True <
D)
~
3
CD
0
:= -<
CD CD 0
CD
~
-< 3" ::l :=
CD
-i - i CD -i
~ en ~ ::l
c: ~
c: -i c: - i
CD CD ~
CD ~

c: c:
When I was growing up ... CD CD

I did not have enough to eat. 1 2 3 4

1.

2. I knew that there was someone to take care of me and

protect me. 1 2 3 4 5

3. My parents were too drunk or too high to care of the 1 2 3 4 5

family.

There was someone in my family who helped me feel 1 2 3 4 5

4.
that I was im ortant or s ecial.
1 2 3 4 5

5. I had to wear dirty clothes.

I felt loved. 1 2 3 4 5
6.
P ARENTIFICATION 120

People in my family felt close to each other. 1 2 3 4 5

8.
4 5

1 2 3 4 5
10. My family was a source of strength and support.
P ARENTIFICATION 121

Appendix N
Adolescent Demographic Form

Please circle the appropriate response and fill in the blank spaces accordingly.
Your responses will remain anonymous.

1. Are you an only child? Yes No

If Yes, go to Question 2.

If No, how many siblings do you have? 1 2 3 other - - - - -

Are you the:

oldest child middle child youngest child

2. Living at home, would you say that one or both of your parents has or had:

i) Problems with alcohol and/or drugs Yes No

If yes, which of your parents had problems with alcohol and/or drugs?

mother father both parents

ii) A chronic debilitating illness (mental or physical) Yes No

If yes, which of your parents had a chronic illness?

mother father both parents

3. If you answered yes to either question in number two, approximately how old were
you (in years) when this experience began?

Approximately how long did this experience last (in years)? _ _ _ _ _ _ __

PARENTIFICATION 122

Demographic Form (continued)

4.Children live in many different living arrangements. Which statement below best
describes your living situation?

a. My mother and father live together and I live with them

b. My mother and father do not live together and I live mostly or only with my
mother
c. My mother and father do not live together and I live mostly or only with my
father
d. My mother and father do not live together and I spend about the same time
living with each
e. I do not live with my mother or father but I live with my

5. What is your gender? Male Female

6. How old are you (in years)? _ _ _ _ __ _ __

7. Please indicate your ethnicity:

Caucasian/White
Black
Aboriginal (e.g. Inuit, Metis)
Asian
Arab/West Asian (e.g. Armenian, Egyptian, Iranian)
Other:
- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PARENTIFICATION 123

Appendix 0
Adult Demographic Form

Please circle the appropriate response and fill in the blank spaces accordingly.
Your responses will remain anonymous.

1. Are you an only child? Yes No

IfYes, go to Question 2.

If No, how many siblings do you have? 1 2 3 other - - - - - -

Are you the:

oldest child middle child youngest child

2. While you were living at home would you say that one or both of your parents had:

i) Problems with alcohol and/or drugs Yes No

If yes, which of your parents had problems with alcohol and/or drugs?

mother father both parents

ii) A chronic debilitating illness (mental or physical) Yes No

If yes, which of your parents had a chronic illness?

mother father both parents

3. If you answered yes to either question in number two, approximately how old were
you (in years) when this experience began?

Approximately how long did this experience last (in years)? _ _ _ _ _ _ __

PARENTIFICATION 124

4. Children live in many different living arrangements. While you were growing up,
which statement below best describes your living situation?

a. My mother and father lived together and I lived with them

b. My mother and father did not live together and I lived mostly or only with my
mother
c. My mother and father did not live together and I lived mostly or only with my
father
d. My mother and father did not live together and I spent about the same time
living with each
e. I did not live with my mother or father but I lived with my

5. What is your gender? Male Female

6. How old are you (in years)? _ _ __ _ _ _ __

7. Please indicate the highest level of education you have received:

Some High School

Completed High School
Some College/University
Completed College/University
Some Graduate School
Completed Graduate School

8. Are you: Single Married Divorced/Separated Widowed

9. Please indicate your ethnicity:
Caucasian/White
Black
Aboriginal (e.g. Inuit, Metis)
Asian
Arab/West Asian (e.g. Armenian, Egyptian, Iranian)
Other: -------------------------------------
PARENTIFICATION 125

Appendix P
Study Introduction - Medical/Blood Clinic

Hello,

We are conducting a research study about the adult roles children take
on in childhood. The study involves filling out six paper and pencil
questionnaires in which you rate your response to questions on a 1-4 or
1-5 scale.

You will be asked questions about childhood experiences (including

adult role taking, and your perspective on family relationships), as well
as questions about your current mood and stress levels. Many of the
questions will ask about your family relationships, such as how things
were at home. For example, a question might ask: "people in my family
spent more time watching TV than talking to each other".

You can fill out the questionnaires while you wait. All of your answers
will be anonymous and confidential. Please let the research assistant
know if you would like to participate.
P ARENTIFICATION 126

Appendix Q
INFORMED CONSENT FORM

The purpose of an infonned consent fonn is to ensure that you, as the participant, understand the purpose of the
study as well as the nature of your involvement.

Research Title: An Empirical Investigation of Perceived Parental Care

The proposal for this research has been reviewed by the Interdisciplinary Committee on Ethics in Human Research
and found to be in compliance with Memorial University's ethics policy. If you have ethical concerns about the
research (such as the way you have been treated or your rights as a participant), you may contact the Chairperson of
the ICEHR at icehr@mun.ca or by telephone at (709) 737-8368.

Research personnel: For questions about this study please contact Kristen Williams (Department of Psychology,
Memorial University of Newfoundland, 709-737-3436) or Dr. Sarah Francis (Department of Psychology, Memorial
University ofNewfoundland, 709-737-4897).

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to learn about the adult roles and responsibilities children take on in childhood
in relation to perceptions of family functioning.

Task requirements: This study will involve you completing a series of six paper and pencil questionnaires,
followed by a short, anonymous demographics fonn.

Duration: Completing the questionnaires should take no longer than 30 minutes.

Potential risks: This study has minimal risk for participants. The questions in this study deal with perceptions of
family functioning and current mood levels that in rare cases could potentially be upsetting for some individuals. In
the unlikely event that you should experience any discomfort as a result of the study, please feel free to contact the
mental health crisis line at 1-888-737-4668.

Benefits: Your participation in this study will be contributing toward the current body of literature on parental care
taking and family functioning.

Anonymity and confidentiality: The data collected in this study are coded with a number that is not associated
with your name and therefore all data are anonymous. The data will be used only by researchers associated with this
project for the purpo e of research publications, conference presentations, or teaching material. To ensure
anonymity, please do not write your name anywhere on the questionnaires. Once completed, all questionnaire
responses will be stored confidentially in a locked filing cabinet for a period of no longer than five years.

Right to withdraw: You are under no obligation to continue to complete the questionnaires if you experience
discomfort during any part of it, or if you feel uncomfortable to do so. Your participation is entirely voluntary. At
any point while filling out the questionnaires you have the right to not answer any question or to withdraw with no
penalty whatsoever.

Consent: I have read the above description and I under tand that the data in this study will be used in research
publications, conference publications, or for teaching purposes. My voluntary completion of the study
questionnaires indicates that I freely and voluntarily consent to participate in this study.
PARENTIFICATION 127

Appendix R
Adult Study Instructions

You will be presented with a series of six short questionnaires and a short demographic form.
Please answer the questions honestly and accurately. If at any time you become uncomfortable
with the study you are free to stop filling out the questionnaires without penalty whatsoever. You
may also leave out any questionls that you do not wish to answer. Please fill out the
questionnaires in pencil or pen while you wait. All responses will be anonymous and your
physician will not be made aware of your decision to/ or to not participate. To ensure anonymity,
please do not write your name anywhere on the questionnaires. If you have any questions, please
feel free to ask the research assistant. When all questionnaires have been completed (or your time
in the waiting room has ended), please seal the envelope and return all study questionnaires to
the research assistant.

Thank you for your participation.

PARENTIFICATION 128

Appendix S
Classroom Study Introduction

My name is and I am a graduate student studying

psychology at the University. We are conducting a study on the adult
roles that children take on in childhood. We are looking for high school
students to participate in the study.

If you decide to participate, you will be asked to fill out some paper and
pencil questionnaires in which you will rate your response to questions
on a 1-4 or 1-5 scale. You will be asked questions about childhood
experiences (including adult role taking, and your perspective on family
relationships), as well as questions about your current mood and stress
levels. Many of the questions will ask about your family relationships,
such as how things were at home. For example, a question might ask:
"people in my family spent more time watching TV than talking to each
other" .

All of your responses will be anonymous, and no will ever associate

your answers with your name. It should take between twenty and thirty
minutes to complete the questionnaires, and you will fill out the
questionnaires at school.

In order to participate in the study, you will need the consent of a parent
of guardian. I am going to pass around some information sheets now for
you to take home to your parent/guardian. Please return the permission
slips in the envelope provided.

The study is not associated with class. The decision to participate or not
participate will not affect your grades in any way.

Does anyone have any questions?

PARENTIFICATION 129

Appendix T
Study Explanation for Parents/Guardians

Your child is being asked to participate in a research study from Memorial University on adult role-
taking in childhood. Please read the information below and return the attached consent form to your
child's homeroom teacher in the envelope provided.

This research study is designed to examine a construct called parentification. Parentification is

essentially when children take on adult roles in childhood. All children take on adult roles in
childhood to some degree, depending on a number of different life circumstances. Parentification can
involve a number of different tasks, such as doing chores around the house, or comforting a parent
when he/she is upset. Childhood parentification has been associated with both positive and negative
outcomes. We are hoping to look at these outcomes, as well find relationships between parentification
and other family relevant variables.

Your child will be asked to complete five paper and pencil, self-report questionnaires. With the
exception of a short demographic form, your child will be asked to rate his/her agreement to questions
on a 1-5 (or in some cases 1-4) rating scale.

Many of the questions will ask about family relationships, such as how things were at home while
your teen was growing up. For example, a question might ask: "people in my family spent more time
watching TV than talking to each other".

At a time agreed upon with the school principal and the classroom teacher, children who have
permission to participate in the study will be asked to leave the classroom to complete the study. It
should take approximately 30 minutes for each child to complete the study.

The questionnaires will be identified only with a random number, so that all responses are completely
anonymous. No one will be able to identify your child's responses and no one will ask your child any
questions about how they responded to the questions. Your child' s answers to the study questions will
be kept strictly confidential.

There will be a researcher from the university present in the room during the research study. Your
child will be free to ask questions at any time. Your child can choose to leave questions blank without
question or penalty, and can stop filling out the questionnaire at any time during the study.

Research participation is entirely voluntary. The study is entirely independent of the school. Your
decision to allow or not allow your child to participate in this study will not affect his/her school
grades in any way.

The packet of questionnaires poses very little risk to your child. In the unlikely event that your child
becomes uncomfortable at any time during the study, they are asked to let the researcher know. In the
highly unlikely event that your child becomes upset by the study, a clinical psychologist will be
available by phone during and immediately after the study.
PARENTIFICATION 130

A large group summary of the overall results of the study will be made available to participating
schools. This will be a summary ofthe general trend of all collected data. No individual responses or
scores will be presented.

The proposal for this research has been reviewed by the Interdisciplinary Committee on Ethics in
Human Research and found to be in compliance with Memorial University's ethics policy. If you have
ethical concerns about the research (such as the way you have been treated or your rights as a
participant), you may contact the Chairperson of the ICEHR at icehr@mun.ca or by telephone at (709)
737-8368.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact the researcher, Kristen Williams, by
e-mail kristenw@mun.ca or phone 364-9619.
P ARENTIFICATION 131

Appendix U

INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR GUARDIANS

The purpose of an informed consent form is to ensure that you, as the parent of a participant, understand the purpose of the
study as well as the nature of your child's involvement.

Research Title: An Empirical Investigation of Perceived Parental Care

The proposal for this research has been reviewed by the Interdisciplinary Committee on Ethics in Human Research and
found to be in compliance with Memorial University's ethics policy. If you have ethical concerns about the research (such
as the way you have been treated or your rights as a participant), you may contact the Chairperson of the ICEHR at
icehr@mun.ca or by telephone at (709) 737-8368.

Research personnel: For questions about this study please contact Kristen Williams (Department of Psychology,
Memorial University of Newfoundland, 709-737-3436) or Dr. Sarah Francis (Department of Psychology, Memorial
University of Newfoundland, 709-737-4897).

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to learn about the adult roles and responsibilities children take on in childhood in
relation to perceptions of family functioning.

Task requirements: This study will involve your child completing a series of five paper and pencil questionnaires,
followed by a short, anonymous demographics form.

Duration: Completing the questionnaires should take no longer than 30 minutes.

Potential risks: This study has minimal risk for participants. The questions in this study deal with perceptions offamily
functioning and current mood levels that in rare cases could potentially be upsetting for some children. In the unlikely
event that your child should experience any discomfort, a clinical psychologist will be available by phone at all times
during/immediately following the study.

Benefits: Your child's participation in this study will be contributing toward the current body ofliterature on parental care
taking and family functioning.

Anonymity and confidentiality: The data collected in this study are coded with a number that is not associated with your
child's name and therefore all data are anonymous. The data will be used only by researchers associated with this project
for the purpose of research publications, conference presentations, or teaching material. To ensure anonymity, the informed
consent forms will be kept separate from your child's questionnaires once returned. All informed consent forms will be
stored confidentially in a locked filing cabinet. Once completed, all questionnaire responses will also be stored
confidentially in a locked filing cabinet for a period of no longer than five years.

Right to withdraw: Your child is under no obligation to continue to complete the questionnaires if he/she experience
discomfort during any part of it, or if he/she feels uncomfortable to do so. Your child's participation is entirely voluntary.
At any point during completion of the questionnaires your child will have the right to not answer any question or to
withdraw with no penalty whatsoever.

Consent: The above description indicates that the data in this study will be used in research publications, conference
publications, or for teaching purposes. Participating schools will be given a general summary of overall group results, no
individual responses or scores will be presented. Please indicate below whether or not you will provide consent for your
child to participate in this research study by checking the appropriate box below and providing a signature.
PARENTIFICATION 132

I PROVIDE consent for my child to participate in this research study

I DO NOT provide consent for my child to participate in this research study

Child Name:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Parent/Guardian Name: -------------------------------------------------------------

Parent/Guardian Signature: ------------------------------------------------------------

Date: -------------------------------
 PARENTIFICATION 133

Appendix V

INFORMED ASSENT FOR STUDENTS

The purpose of an informed consent form is to ensure that you, as a participant, understand the
purpose of the study as well as the nature of your involvement.

Research Title: An Empirical Investigation of Perceived Parental Care

The proposal for this research has been reviewed by the Interdisciplinary Committee on Ethics in
Human Research and found to be in compliance with Memorial University's ethics policy. If you
have ethical concerns about the research (such as the way you have been treated or your rights as a
participant), you may contact the Chairperson of the ICEHR at icehr@mun.ca or by telephone at
(709) 737-8368.

Research personnel: For questions about this study please contact Kristen Williams (Department
of Psychology, Memorial University ofNewfoundland, 709-737-3436) or Dr. Sarah Francis
(Department of Psychology, Memorial University ofNewfoundland, 709-737-4897).

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to learn about the adult roles and responsibilities children
take on in childhood in relation to perceptions of family functioning.

Task requirements: This study will involve you completing a series of five paper and pencil
questionnaires, followed by a short, anonymous demographics form.

Duration: Completing the questionnaires should take no longer than 30 minutes.

Potential risks: This study has minimal risk for participants. The questions in this study deal with
perceptions of family functioning and current mood levels that in rare cases could potentially be
upsetting. In the unlikely event that you should experience any discomfort, a clinical psychologist
will be available by phone at all times during/immediately following the study.

Benefits: Your participation in this study will be contributing toward the current body of literature
on parental care taking and family functioning.

Anonymity and confidentiality: The data collected in this study are coded with a number that is
not associated with your name and therefore all data are anonymous. The data will be used only by
researchers associated with this project for the purpose of research publications, conference
presentations, or teaching material. To ensure anonymity, please do not write your name anywhere
on the questionnaires. Once completed, all questionnaire responses will be stored confidentially in a
locked filing cabinet for a period of no longer than five years.
 P ARENTIFICATION 134

Right to withdraw: You are under no obligation to continue to complete the questionnaires if you
experience discomfort during any part of it, or if you feel uncomfortable to do so. Your
participation is entirely voluntary. At any point while filling out the questionnaires you have the
right to not answer any question or to withdraw with no penalty whatsoever.

Consent: I have read the above description and I understand that the data in this study will be used
in research publications, conference publications, or for teaching purposes. My voluntary
completion of the study questionnaires indicates that I freely and voluntarily consent to participate
in this study.
PARENTIFICATION 135

Appendix W
Adolescent Study Instructions

You will be presented with a series of five short questionnaires and a short demographic form.
Please answer the questions honestly and accurately.
Your answers will be anonymous and identified only by a research participant number. No one
will know what answers you have given, and no one will ask you any questions about your
answers. Please do not write your name anywhere on the questionnaires.
You can leave out any question/s that you do not want to answer. You can ask the researcher
questions at any point during the study. If at any time you become uncomfortable with the study
you can stop filling out the questionnaires without penalty whatsoever. It is very unlikely, but if
you become uncomfortable at any point during the study, please let the researcher know.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary and is not related to your schoolwork or
grades in any way.

Thank you for your participation.