Journal of Divorce & Remarriage

ISSN: 1050-2556 (Print) 1540-4811 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjdr20

Emotionally Focused Family Therapy and Play

Therapy for Young Children Whose Parents Are
Divorced

Mara R. Hirschfeld & Andrea K. Wittenborn

To cite this article: Mara R. Hirschfeld & Andrea K. Wittenborn (2016) Emotionally Focused Family
Therapy and Play Therapy for Young Children Whose Parents Are Divorced, Journal of Divorce &
Remarriage, 57:2, 133-150, DOI: 10.1080/10502556.2015.1127878

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2015.1127878

Published online: 01 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5328

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjdr20
JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE
2016, VOL. 57, NO. 2, 133–150
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10502556.2015.1127878

Emotionally Focused Family Therapy and Play Therapy for

Young Children Whose Parents Are Divorced
Mara R. Hirschfeld and Andrea K. Wittenborn
Department of Human Development, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Divorce is common and can pose risks to those involved. Divorce; Emotionally
Focused Family Therapy;
Although divorce affects all parts of the family system, young play therapy; young children
children face extraneous challenges due to their unique devel-
opmental stage and limited cognitive ability. Emotionally
focused family therapy (EFFT) works to enhance attachment
bonds by restructuring a family’s negative interaction cycle
and can be useful for repairing relationships between parents
and their children who are suffering negative effects of par-
ental divorce. Whereas adults have the skills to express them-
selves verbally, young children often use imaginary play to
convey their emotional experiences and unmet attachment
needs. By using play therapy techniques within an EFFT frame-
work, adults and children can better communicate their per-
spectives concerning difficult life events such as parental
divorce.

Parental divorce affects a significant portion of families in the United States.

Divorce rates are difficult to estimate (e.g., Amato, 2010; Kennedy & Ruggles,
2014), although scholars tend to agree that about half of all marriages will
end in divorce (National Center for Health Statistics, 2006) and that the
consequences of divorce on individuals and families can be substantial. After
divorce occurs, parents separate from one another as they begin their own
lives, often leaving their children as the only form of communication
between them (Meltzer, 2011). As the divorce becomes a part of the child’s
identity (Meltzer, 2011), they are forced to adjust to two different households
and communities (Marquardt, 2005). This feeling of cohabitating between
two lives has been called “the divided world of the child” (Finley, 2006).
Although divorce might affect each child differently, one caveat to consider is
the age of the child at the time of the parents’ separation.
Numerous studies suggest that divorce is more challenging for young
children because they lack the cognitive and developmental skills necessary
to understand their situation. Additionally, they struggle to grasp complex

CONTACT Mara R. Hirschfeld [email protected] Associate Therapist, Marriage and Family

Therapy, 117 W. 72nd Street, Suite 5East New York, NY 10023, USA.
Mara R. Hirschfeld is now at Holding Hope Marriage and Family Therapy, PLLC in New York, New York. Andrea K.
Wittenborn is now in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Michigan State University.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
134 M. R. HIRSCHFELD AND A. K. WITTENBORN

emotions, making it difficult for them to express themselves (Cohen &

Ronen, 1999; Emery, 1999). Whereas the majority of literature explores
older children’s experience of divorce ranging from middle childhood to
adolescence, limited attention has been given to preschool-aged children
(Norton, 1983; Wallerstein, 1985). When compared to older children,
research suggests that children whose parents get divorced before they are
6 years old face an increased threat of psychological and developmental
problems (Emery, 1999; Hetherington, 1979; Wallerstein & Blakeslee,
1989). At such an early age, children need their parents to shield and protect
them in an effort to keep them safe (Pruett & Pruett, 1999). In the case of
parental divorce, the child’s environment can become unstable, making them
more susceptible to behavioral and emotional problems (Pruett & Pruett,
1999). Because divorce happens most frequently when children are about 6
years old, it is important to understand how young children are affected by
the situation (Emery, 1999). In this article, we address how divorce can affect
young children’s development as well as their attachment to their caregivers.
We also make a treatment recommendation that combines play therapy
techniques and the attachment theory-based therapeutic approach of
Emotionally Focused Family Therapy (EEFT; Johnson, 2004) in an effort to
help young children better cope with their parents’ divorce.
When considering a useful treatment for young children, it is important to
cater to their unique developmental stage. Because talk therapy is not con-
ducive to a young child’s ability to communicate, we suggest combining
EFFT with play therapy, thus inviting children to express themselves through
an avenue of communication that is both comfortable and familiar to them
(Benedict & Schofield, 2010; Elkind, 2007; Schaefer, 1993). Similar to the way
adults use words to communicate their thoughts and feelings, young children
use play materials such as toys and puppets to express their inner thoughts
and feelings (Landreth, 2002). According to Gil and Drewes (2005), play
encourages children to express themselves to others, take responsibility,
practice their skills, and make sense of traumatic events. Furthermore,
EFFT focuses on accessing the family’s underlying emotions and attachment
needs, while helping them create new ways of interacting together (Johnson,
2004). Therefore, EFFT would be a viable treatment option for families of
divorce because it invites them to work through experiences of divorce that
are often fraught with emotion and encourages connection and support
among family members. By using play therapy techniques through the frame-
work of EFFT, therapists can help children decrease their anxiety, control
their anger, become more aware of their emotions, and find solutions (Hall,
Kaduson, & Schaefer, 2002). Clinicians can assist families to better under-
stand each other’s perspectives and encourage parents to be more attuned to
their children’s needs both on an emotional and developmental level. EFFT
also provides practitioners with a theoretical map that is essential to guide
 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 135

their use of play therapy techniques. To illustrate our recommendation, we

have included a case example to demonstrate an application of the approach.

Divorce and young children

A great deal of literature exists suggesting that parental divorce can lead to
extra challenges for the children involved (Emery, 1999). In particular, divorce
is accompanied by a variety of changes such as moving houses, schools, or
both; the loss of one’s old family; and separation from the noncustodial parent
(Emery, 1999). In a study conducted on high-conflict families, 58% to 71% of
preschool-age children seemed to struggle with the transition of moving
between houses, displaying hyperactivity, developmentally immature beha-
vior, and resistance when separating from either parent (Johnston &
Campbell, 1988). With new transitions and changes to their daily routine,
the effects of divorce on children’s adjustment can be concerning. Because
preschool-age children lack the verbal skills necessary to express themselves,
they often communicate through their behavior (Leon, 2003). According to
Hetherington, Cox, and Cox (1978), preschool-age children (4–6) whose
parents are divorced tend to be demanding, aggressive, rebellious, and
uncontrollable. Additionally, one study explored the play patterns of 56 pre-
schoolers whose parents were divorced and found that most children seemed
disengaged and uninterested, and others refused to play at all (Johnston &
Campbell, 1988). Finally, Whiteside and Becker (2000) conducted a meta-
analysis that revealed an association such that increased animosity between
parents led to more problems for young children.
Although literature exists regarding the negative short-term consequences,
few longitudinal studies have been conducted for young children whose
parents are divorced. One of the most detailed studies, the Virginia
Longitudinal Study, interviewed 144 families with 4-year-old children and
collected data at multiple points in the child’s life from age 6 to age 24.
Although many of them struggled 2 years after the divorce, the majority of
children recovered without suffering any long-term effects (Hetherington,
1989, 1993, 1999; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1982). Intervention aimed at
decreasing the negative short-term consequences that occur immediately
following divorce seems most needed.

Developmental stage of young children

To create an effective plan for treatment, clinicians must understand how the
child’s developmental stage affects his or her ability to adjust to significant
events such as parental divorce (Cicchetti, 1993; Leon, 2003). According to
Piaget (1924), the developmental stage of young children between the ages of 2
and 7 is the preoperational-concrete stage. In this stage, children master their
136 M. R. HIRSCHFELD AND A. K. WITTENBORN

verbal skills while their cognitive thinking ability continues to develop (Cohen
& Ronen, 1999). They begin to increase their vocabulary and link words
together in an effort to make more coherent sentences (Steinberg, Bornstein,
Vandell, & Rook, 2011). In terms of the child’s physiological development, the
left side of the child’s brain, which is responsible for language development, is
continually growing from ages 3 to 6 (Steinberg et al., 2011). Although their
verbal skills progress throughout early childhood, the development of emotional
expression does not occur until the end of the preoperational stage at age 5 or 6
(Benedict & Schofield, 2010). Young children understand basic feelings and are
capable of experiencing them, but have yet to learn how to express complex
emotions (Cohen & Ronen, 1999). It is also common for young children to
develop a greater meaning for family and to begin to understand their role as a
child (Cohen & Ronen, 1999). Parents contribute by sharing with them family
narratives or stories, which help children develop their own identity (Fivush,
2001). A typical attribute of the preoperational stage is egocentricity, causing
children to only see the world from their perspective (Steinberg et al., 2011).
Because of this, young children tend to blame themselves for any traumatic or
negative events that occur (Benedict & Schofield, 2010).
Cognitive theory suggests that divorce poses extra challenges for children
under the age of 6 because they lack the ability to comprehend their situation
given their intellectual constraints (Rogers, 2004). Although young children are
capable of understanding absolute concepts, they have difficulty with abstract
ideas such as birth, death, and divorce because they lack the understanding that
these events are permanent (Ronen, 1992). For example, one study of young
children ages 2.5 to 7 reported ambiguous and clouded interpretations of their
parents’ separation (Pruett & Pruett, 1999). Similarly, Mazur (1993) interviewed
119 children ranging in age from 5 to 10 years old and discovered that their
ability to provide clear and realistic interpretations of divorce increased with age.
In essence, there seems to be a gap between the skills young children possess and
the comprehension level needed to cope and adapt to parental divorce. For this
reason, preschool-age children are considered to be the most vulnerable age
group because they lack the cognitive ability to understand the reality of their
parents’ separation (Kurdek, 1981). Due to such developmental challenges, they
tend to experience an increased level of stress, leading them to become more
overwhelmed than what they are accustomed to handling (Rogers, 2004). In an
effort to help children cope with these stressors, research suggests an association
between children’s ability to adapt to parental divorce and their quality of
attachment to significant caretakers (Faber & Wittenborn, 2010).

Attachment theory
Prior to considering how children’s attachment bonds are affected by
divorce, it is important to understand the basic principles of attachment
 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 137

theory. Since its development in the 1980s, attachment theory has strongly
emphasized the relationship between the parent and child as being para-
mount in the child’s long-term health and development (Zeanah, Berlin, &
Boris, 2011). According to Bowlby (1988), attachment forms during the
first year of a child’s life and can be defined as the desired connection and
unique bond shared between a child and his or her caretaker. These key
attachment bonds help to provide a “safe haven” for the child when stressed
and a “secure base” for the child to feel capable of independently exploring
his or her surroundings (Benedict & Schofield, 2010). Scholars suggest that
the child’s early attachment bonds influence the development of a child’s
internal working models (IWMs), which guide his or her understanding of
important relationships through life (Bowlby, 1988).
In addition to a child’s IWMs, patterns of attachment bonds have been
identified among young children (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978).
Along with others, Ainsworth headed an infamous study of the Strange
Situation procedure (SSP), which involves a brief separation of mother and
child (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Ainsworth recognized that children varied in
their responses and organized their reactions into distinct categories known
as secure, anxious/ambivalent, and avoidant (Ainsworth, 1973; Ainsworth
et al., 1978). The disorganized category was added later. Children who can
rely on their parents to be warm, supportive, and receptive are categorized as
being securely attached (Ainsworth, 1973). In contrast, children who are
insecurely attached to their caregiver believe they are unworthy of being
loved and thus perceive others as a threat (Bowlby, 1988). These children
present feelings of frustration and anger and are considered anxious or
ambivalent. Children who are classified as avoidant have parents who are
dismissive and consistently ignore their efforts for attention, forcing them to
become independent at an early age. Finally, children who are categorized as
disorganized are often fearful of their parents and make an effort to limit
contact with them (Ainsworth, 1973; Ainsworth et al., 1978).
Although attachment bonds are believed to remain relatively consistent
throughout one’s lifetime, they can change in the presence of stressful situations
(Bowlby, 1980). In the case of parental divorce, children experience a variety of
stressors that threaten their attachment to their primary caretaker (Waters,
Merrick, Treboux, Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000). For example, children whose
parents are divorced are often separated from their parents, which could inhibit
their maintenance of secure attachment bonds (Bowlby, 1969). Additionally,
parents who are going through a divorce might be experiencing a great deal of
pressure, causing them to be less responsive, more emotionally distant, or less
predictable. As a result, young children might feel their caregiver is unavailable
and thus are left to cope with the situation on their own (Faber & Wittenborn,
2010; Waters et al., 2000). With parents less emotionally and physically
engaged, children might feel a sense of loss over their parents’ relationship
138 M. R. HIRSCHFELD AND A. K. WITTENBORN

and thus their old family (Furrow & Palmer, 2007). According to Bowlby
(1980), children who are unable to reconnect with their caregiver in the case
of divorce become detached and remove themselves from interactions with
others. A large body of research suggests that whereas securely attached rela-
tionships lay the groundwork for a child’s development, insecurely attached
bonds leave children susceptible to behavioral, social, and emotional problems
during their preschool years and throughout later life (Kobak, Cassidy, Lyons-
Ruth, & Ziv, 2006; T. G. O’Connor, 2006). When compared to children in intact
families, those whose parents are divorced are more at risk for developing
insecure attachment bonds with their caretakers (Tipplet & Konig, 2007;
Zimmerman, Fremmer-Bombik, Spangeler, & Grossman, 1997).
Despite the risks associated with divorce, there are a number of protective
factors that contribute to children’s adjustment postdivorce. Parenting quality
and responsiveness are two of the key protective factors found to help children
cope with their parents’ divorce (Kelly & Emery, 2003; Leon, 2003; Rogers,
2004). A large body of research suggests that children whose parents provide
them with parental monitoring and involvement as well as warmth and support
in times of need, are more likely to adjust well to their parents’ divorce
(Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan, 2002; Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000; Leon,
2003). Because the protective factors described here are indicative of a secure
attachment, it seems likely that strengthening the attachment bonds between
child and caregiver could decrease the likelihood of maladjustment for children
whose parents are divorced (Faber & Wittenborn, 2010). A secure attachment
bond involves the child being able to leave his or her caretaker to explore his or
her surroundings, while still returning for comfort and support when distressed
(Leon, 2003). Thus, employing a treatment plan that increases parental acces-
sibility and responsiveness could perhaps mitigate some of the negative risks
that occur immediately following divorce and ease their transition in the hope
of helping them adjust better to their parents’ divorce (Faber & Wittenborn,
2010). Although there are a variety of therapeutic interventions that stem from
attachment theory, EFFT works to alter the family’s interactions in the hope of
accessing underlying emotions and establishing a secure base for the children
involved (Johnson, 2004). Our focus has been on supporting young children of
divorce, but EFFT might also help parents who are also likely to be experiencing
challenges related to divorce. This could occur through relief from reestablish-
ing a predictable relationship with a child or from experiencing improvement
in a child’s behavior or could occur through individual sessions with the parent
that target his or her own struggles.

Emotionally focused family therapy

The goal of EFFT is to restructure attachment bonds by enhancing emotional
connection among family members (Johnson, 2004). EFFT assumes that the
 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 139

parent–child connection is vital to the health of the child and the future
success of the family (Palmer & Efron, 2007). An EFFT therapist seeks to
change the problematic cycle of interaction in the family by helping family
members to create new, positive interactions with one another (Furrow,
Bradley, & Johnson, 2004). To begin, the therapist validates the family’s
problem and helps them express their attachment needs (Palmer & Efron,
2007). The therapist explores each individual’s experience and tries to access
underlying emotions that might inhibit the family from interacting with one
another in an effective way (Johnson, 2004). Therapists then facilitate new
interactions of support and sensitive responsiveness and help families to
adopt their new strategies of relating into their lives to increase the family’s
capacity to solve arising and historical problems on their own. For this
reason, EFFT would work well with divorced families because it would
encourage them to talk about their feelings and help them cope with difficult
emotions surrounding the divorce. Similarly, EFFT is a good treatment
option for children who experience an increased need for emotional connec-
tion and the availability and sensitive responsiveness of their attachment
figures (Johnson et al., 2005), which tends to be the case with young children
of divorce.

Stages of EFFT
Developed by Johnson and Greenberg, EFFT is a multistep model that can be
broken down into three overarching themes (Johnson, 1996; Wittenborn,
Faber, Harvey, & Thomas, 2006). EFFT is often offered weekly and is
completed in about 10 to 20 sessions (Palmer & Efron, 2007). EFFT was
established by modeling the same process of change used in EFT, which is an
empirically validated treatment approach most often used with distressed
couples (Johnson, 2004). Based on past research, EFFT has been found to be
successful when treating families with adolescents suffering from eating
disorders (Johnson, Maddeaux, & Blouin, 1998; Robinson, Dolhanty, &
Greenberg, 2013) and is a common treatment modality for adolescents
struggling with depression and suicidal ideation (Johnson & Lee, 2000).
Although research has been conducted using EFFT with stepfamilies
(Furrow & Palmer, 2007), research is still needed to test the efficacy of the
model.

Stage 1: Assessment and deescalation of negative cycle

In the first stage of EFFT, the therapist develops a strong bond with the
entire family. In an effort to create a strong alliance, the therapist must
validate and actively listen to each family member and his or her experiences
of the situation (Furrow & Palmer, 2007). Through conversation, the
140 M. R. HIRSCHFELD AND A. K. WITTENBORN

therapist closely tracks the family’s cycle while assessing each member as
either a “withdrawer” or a “pursuer” (Furrow & Palmer, 2007). After identi-
fying the family’s cycle and each member’s position in it, the next goal is to
reframe the problem in terms of the family’s interactional cycle and to
encourage them to see the cycle as being the root of the presenting problem
rather than the individual functioning of one particular person (Palmer &
Efron, 2007). This helps the family members become more attentive and
emotionally engaged with one another (Furrow & Palmer, 2007). In regard to
preschool-age children, the therapist must be the child’s spokesperson to
effectively convey the child’s emotions to the parents (Wittenborn et al.,
2006). The therapist works with the parents and the children to help them
understand one another’s point of view (Wittenborn et al., 2006). The
therapist helps the individual identify his or her attachment needs and
desires and express those to the family (Johnson, 2004).

Stage 2: Restructuring interactions

The defining attribute of this stage involves the therapist creating opportu-
nities for each family member to explore his or her attachment needs and
related feelings in depth, express them to one another, and respond suppor-
tively and lovingly to one another’s needs for connection. This results in the
engagement of more withdrawn family members and the softening of pursu-
ing family members and is the start of a new positive cycle of interaction
(Furrow & Palmer, 2007). As the individual explores his or her part in the
dance at a more vulnerable level, it allows the individual and his or her family
members to see his or her position differently because it is not masked by
harsh comments or withdrawn behaviors. After eliciting the individual’s
underlying emotion, the therapist guides the family to respond to the family
member’s more vulnerable bids for connection and initiates new ways of
helping the family interact (Johnson, 2004).

Stage 3: Integration of new cycle

In the last stage of EFFT, the therapist works to guide the family toward
integrating their new pattern of connection into their interactions with one
another (Johnson, 2004; Wittenborn et al., 2006). Therapists are less active in
this stage as family members continue to incorporate their positive methods
of engaging with one another.

Play therapy
Although EFFT has been used with families without the help of other
techniques, EFFT should be used as an overarching framework in
 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 141

combination with play therapy techniques when working with young chil-
dren who do not have the cognitive abilities to fully participate in traditional
EFFT sessions. Play therapy has been employed as a therapeutic model for
young children because it is conducive to their particular developmental
stage (Bratton, Ray, Rhine, & Jones, 2005). Contrary to adults who express
themselves verbally, young children convey their emotions through their own
world of imaginary play (Bratton et al., 2005). Therapy can be difficult when
trying to integrate these two forms of communication. However, play therapy
gives adults the opportunity to connect with children on their level and
allows them to recognize the child’s point of view (Guerney & Guerney,
1989; Wittenborn et al., 2006).
When treating young children, play therapy becomes the means by which
the therapist connects with the child, thus inviting him or her to play using
objects to represent thoughts and feelings (Axline, 1947; Kottman, 2001;
Landreth, 2002; O’Connor, 2001; Schaefer, 2001). Play therapists have used
a variety of creative methods such as drawing, uninhibited play, storybooks,
role-plays, and puppet shows (Schaefer & O’Connor, 1983; Wittenborn et al.,
2006). In addition, play therapy encourages children to express their vulner-
able feelings and act out their problems through an avenue that is both
playful and trustworthy (Elkind, 2007; Schaefer, 1993).
The onset of play therapy occurred in the early 1900s, but it has grown
considerably in popularity over the past two decades (Bratton et al., 2005).
Many therapists today use play therapy as a typical treatment modality to
help young children struggling with issues related to their behavioral and
emotional development (Bratton & Ray, 2000). Although play therapy is
commonly used in practice, it needs empirical evidence to be considered a
reliable technique and has struggled to get support from academic research-
ers (Azzerad, 2000; Campbell, 1992; Lebo, 1953; Levitt, 1971; Phillips, 1985;
Reade, Hunter, & McMillan, 1999). In an effort to measure the efficacy of
play therapy, Bratton and colleagues (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of 93
articles (published from 1953–2000). The study revealed that play therapy is
effective regardless of the theoretical model used, yet there was a difference in
effect size such that humanistic-nondirective interventions (effect size = .92)
were considered more effective than nonhumanistic-directive interventions
(effect size = .71). Although play therapy has been used with a number of
theoretical models such as cognitive-behavioral therapy (Knell, 1993),
Adlerian theory (Kottman & Schaefer, 1993), Bowen (Nims & Duba, 2011),
solution-focused therapy (Nims, 2007), and Gestalt theory (Oaklander, 2001),
there has been greater movement toward combining play therapy with family
therapy (Miller, 1994). Furthermore, LeBlanc and Ritchie (2001) discovered
that when parents are involved in play therapy, it leads to increased benefits
for the children involved. Considering the goal of EFFT is to connect parent
and child, using EFFT as an overarching theoretical framework in
142 M. R. HIRSCHFELD AND A. K. WITTENBORN

combination with play therapy might help children express their feelings in a
safe environment while meeting their attachment needs. Because play ther-
apy has been efficacious with preschool-age children (Ray, 2006), particularly
those suffering from abuse and trauma (Gil, 1996), research evidence sug-
gests its potential for success with young children whose parents are
divorced.

Treatment recommendation: EFFT and play therapy

When combined with play therapy techniques, EFFT can be a useful guide to
help parents and children reestablish their attachment bonds with one
another following the strain experienced after divorce. In terms of young
children whose parents are divorced, findings suggest that play helps pre-
school-age children better understand their environment and encourages
them to discuss difficult topics and revisit past events (Benedict &
Schofield, 2010). In addition, clinicians have suggested play therapy as a
treatment approach with preschool-age children who have experienced
attachment issues (Benedict, 2006; Benedict & Hastings, 2002).
To further highlight the use of EFFT and play therapy for young children,
we present a case illustration by discussing techniques that could be applied
at each of the three stages. The case example is of the Bloomberg family
where the father, Jeff, brought his two children—Matthew, age 7, and Bobby,
age 4—to therapy 6 months after his wife left them and filed for divorce. Jeff
sought therapy in an effort to help Bobby, who had been acting out (i.e.,
demonstrating acts of conduct disorder, yelling at other children, and causing
trouble at school) since the onset of his parents’ divorce. Bobby was very
close to his mother growing up and, after their mother left, Matthew devel-
oped a strong alliance with his father and bullied Bobby.

Stage 1: Assessment and deescalation of negative cycle

In the initial stage of assessment, the therapist’s main goal is to build a strong
alliance with the family and to gain an understanding of each family mem-
ber’s experience (Johnson, 2004). The difference when working with parents
with young children versus couples or families with older children is that the
parents are initially seen alone first to help the therapist paint a picture of
how the family interacts from an adult’s point of view. In the case of divorced
families, parents might be brought into therapy together or separately
depending on the circumstances and interests of the parents. At this time,
the therapist asks the parent(s) to describe the family’s background and to
give a brief history of the problem.
In the case of the Bloomberg family, the therapist began the process by
asking to see the father alone to hear the initial problem and understand his
 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 143

perspective. Jeff came in for an individual session where he complained about

his youngest son, Bobby, who had been in trouble at school for throwing
things at other preschoolers, causing Jeff to feel he needed to repeatedly
apologize to Bobby’s teacher. Jeff told the therapist that the boys had been
fighting regularly and stated that it usually ended with Jeff punishing Bobby
for hitting his brother Matthew and Bobby yelling at his father, usually saying
something like, “I just want Mommy, I love Mommy not you.” After listen-
ing and reflecting on the parent’s experience, the therapist then employed
play therapy with the child to begin forming a therapeutic relationship and
outlining the family’s interactional cycle.
Using play therapy techniques, the therapist then evaluated the family’s
patterns further by following the child’s guidance through activities such as
playing house or creating a puppet show. For example, the therapist acknowl-
edged how the puppet might have been feeling, thus empathizing with the
child’s experience. While assessing the family cycle, the therapist tried to
understand which family member was more pursuing in family interactions
and which was more withdrawn (Johnson, 2004). The therapist was careful to
be patient and pay close attention to the child’s experience during the
assessment phase.
Following the initial steps of EFFT, it was important for the therapist to
access the child’s underlying emotions such as sadness and fear, as well as the
child’s unmet attachment needs. In this case, the therapist used the Feeling
Word Game, where she asked Bobby to brainstorm a list of feelings that a
boy his age might experience (for details see Kaduson & Shaefer, 1997,
pp. 19–21). Because Bobby was unable to read, the therapist drew a face
representing each feeling on a piece of paper. Next, the therapist told a story
that included positive and negative feelings and, using the jar of feelings
represented by a jar of poker chips, placed one poker chip above each feeling
that Bobby identified throughout the story. This technique allowed Bobby to
acknowledge an array of emotions children might experience and encouraged
him to express emotions regarding his parents’ divorce. After assessing the
child’s underlying emotions, the therapist discussed what she observed about
Bobby with his father (Johnson et al., 2005).
In the next session the therapist met with Bobby again as he was the
identified patient and used play therapy techniques. In a room filled with
toys, Bobby selected three male teddy bears, telling the therapist that the
mommy teddy bear was not allowed to live with the family and had dis-
appeared. Bobby acted out a scene where the brother bear started to play with
the baby teddy bear only before stealing his favorite toy truck. The baby bear,
angry and upset, hit the brother bear and threw the puppet across the room.
Bobby then took the largest of the stuffed animals, which he called the papa
bear, and yelled at the baby bear, sending him to time-out for hitting the
brother bear. Through play therapy, the therapist was able to see the family’s
144 M. R. HIRSCHFELD AND A. K. WITTENBORN

interactional cycle more clearly and worked to validate and reflect Bobby’s
experience by telling him that the baby bear must have been very upset and
hurt when the brother bear stole his favorite toy. The therapist then assessed
the family’s attachment needs by playing the Feeling Word Game with
Bobby. The therapist suspected that Bobby might be feeling confused by
his mother leaving suddenly and having no subsequent involvement with
him and his family and that he might need additional support and care from
his father to soothe his anxiety. Finally, the therapist met with the father and
reframed the family’s negative interactional cycle as the enemy describing the
vicious cycle of how Jeff’s attempt to be a good parent and manage Bobby’s
misbehavior actually leads to Bobby feeling further disconnected from the
family and the more Bobby feels unloved or alone, the more angry and
aggressive he becomes, which leads Jeff to become more harsh with his
punishment. Internally, however, Bobby is likely struggling to make sense
of his mother’s departure and is reactive when he feels unloved or powerless.
This new way of thinking about the problem presents a dilemma for Jeff, who
believes that the solution to changing negative behavior is harsher limit
setting and more punishments. The therapist points out that creating oppor-
tunities for connection with Bobby might also be an important strategy for
deterring Bobby’s negative behavior and could encourage new, positive
interactions within the family.

Stage 2: Restructuring interactions

In the second stage of EFFT, the therapist’s goal is to encourage the need for
attachment and to restructure the family’s patterns of interaction (Johnson,
2004). One method of accomplishing this is through the use of family play
therapy. While letting the family play together, the therapist searches for
clues indicating their attachment strategies with one another and studies
their communication as a family. Family play therapy provides the opportu-
nity for parents and their children to be more imaginative and creative, while
restructuring the way they relate to one another (Straus, 1999). One helpful
technique is to have the family reenact the same scene that the child created
when he or she was playing with the therapist before; however, this time the
therapist would intervene when necessary. This technique helps the therapist
assess the family’s interactional pattern, but it is also important for the
therapist to encourage each family member to accept one another’s experi-
ences (Johnson, 2004). One way to do this would be for the therapist to have
the family reenact the same scene but this time assigning each family
member a new role. This would encourage everyone to feel what it might
be like to be in one another’s shoes. In the case of young children whose
parents are divorced and depending on the situation, the therapist might
conduct two separate family sessions, one with each parent, while remaining
 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 145

focused on the family’s overall pattern. The therapist is also responsible for
creating the opportunity for emotional engagement among family members,
which can be accomplished by establishing a safe environment and reenga-
ging the withdrawer. In the case of young children, the therapist is often
responsible for being the voice for the child and helping the child to vocalize
unmet attachment needs. Finally, the therapist helps the family reflect on
what they have learned from these activities and connects this into to their
future interactions together (Thompson, Bender, Cardoso, & Flynn, 2011).
Using the theoretical framework of EFFT, the therapist of the Bloomberg
family employed family play therapy methods to restructure the family’s
interactional cycle. As the session began, the therapist asked the family to
enact the same scene that Bobby acted out in his session with the therapist
alone. Matthew played the brother bear, Jeff played the papa bear, and Bobby
played the baby bear. As the scene developed, the brother bear tried to upset
the baby bear. The brother bear called the baby bear names, laughed at him,
and stole his toys, causing the baby bear to revolt by pushing the brother
bear. Jeff, playing papa bear, stepped in and punished the baby bear for
attacking his brother. The therapist then asked the family members to stop
the scene and switch roles by having each family member play the part of the
other bear, such as asking Bobby to play the father bear while Matthew plays
the baby bear. By doing this, the therapist not only initiated an exchange of
power among the family members, but also allowed each of them the
opportunity to be in the other person’s shoes. In the next few sessions, the
therapist met with Jeff and Bobby alone. After preparing Jeff beforehand, she
facilitated nondirective play therapy sessions with Jeff and Bobby in which
Jeff was to allow Bobby to feel some power by selecting the activity and Jeff
was encouraged to play creatively and respond empathically, using limit
setting sparingly. This special father–son time encouraged a shift in behavior
among the dyad in which Bobby began to experience his father as more
loving and exhibited less negative behavior. Jeff enjoyed the opportunities to
engage differently with Bobby and experienced relief from the decrease in
Bobby’s aggressive behavior.

Stage 3: Integration of new cycle

In the third stage of EFFT, the therapist helps the family tackle their
problems differently and works to integrate their new cycle into their
daily routine (Johnson, 2004). The therapist also helps the family acknowl-
edge each other’s perspectives and initiate a discussion regarding a more
successful future. In the case of the Bloomberg family, as Jeff realized
Bobby’s need for connection and predictability in close relationships, he
grew less frustrated with his children and was more prepared to engage
with Bobby in a supportive, loving, and empathic way. In one session, the
146 M. R. HIRSCHFELD AND A. K. WITTENBORN

therapist asked the family to replay the scene when the brother bear stole
the baby bear’s toys; rather than getting upset at the baby bear, the father
stood up for the baby bear and asked the brother bear to give the toys
back to the baby bear. As a result, Bobby was able to trust his father as
someone who would protect him, and Bobby’s negative behaviors at home
and school continued to decline.

Conclusion
Although research exploring the impact of divorce for older children exists,
less is known about the experience of divorce for young children. This is not
surprising given their developmental stage. However, some findings indicate
that young children suffer following the divorce of their parents, particularly
in the first 2 years after the divorce occurs. In turn, this could indicate a
critical time for intervention. Literature on theoretically informed and devel-
opmentally appropriate treatment for young children is limited. This article
was written to address this gap in the literature and provide clinicians with
treatment recommendations for helping families who are struggling with a
recent divorce. The case illustration demonstrates how EFFT can serve as an
overarching framework and play therapy techniques can help the therapist
personalize the interventions to the needs of young children. The Bloomberg
family is an example of how the combination of EFFT and play therapy can
be used to treat young children whose parents are divorced. More research is
needed to test the efficacy of using EFFT and play therapy to help families
struggling after a divorce.

References
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1973). The development of infant–mother attachment. In B. M.
Caldwell & H. N. Ricciuti (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 3, pp. 1–94).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Amato, P. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 72, 650–666. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00723.x
Axline, V. (1947). Play therapy. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Azzerad, J. (2000). Results of play therapy? Retrieved from http://www.behavior.org/parent
ing/parenting_play_therapy.cfm
Benedict, H. E. (2006). Object relations play therapy: Applications to attachment problems
and relational trauma. In C. E. Schaefer & H. G. Kaduson (Eds.), Contemporary play
therapy: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 3–27). New York, NY: Guilford.
Benedict, H. E., & Hastings, L. (2002). Object-relations play therapy. In J. Magnavita
(Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychotherapy: Vol. 1. Psychodynamic/ object rela-
tions (pp. 47–80). New York, NY: Wiley.
 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 147

Benedict, H., & Schofield, D. (2010). Play therapy for insecurely attached preschool children.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachments. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depression. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent–child attachment and healthy human development.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bratton, S., & Ray, D. (2000). What the research shows about play therapy. International
Journal of Play Therapy, 9(1), 47–88. doi:10.1037/h0089440
Bratton, S., Ray, D., Rhine, T., & Jones, L. (2005). The efficacy of play therapy with children:
A meta-analytic review of treatment outcomes. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 36, 376–390. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.36.4.376
Campbell, T. W. (1992). Promoting play therapy: Marketing dream or empirical nightmare?
Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 4(3), 111–117.
Cicchetti, D. (1993). Developmental psychopathology: Reactions, reflections, projections.
Developmental Review, 13, 471–502. doi:10.1006/drev.1993.1021
Cohen, O., & Ronen, T. (1999). Young children’s adjustment to their parents’ divorce as
reflected in their drawings. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 30(1–2), 47–70. doi:10.1300/
J087v30n01_04
Elkind, D. (2007). The power of play: How spontaneous, imaginative activities lead to happier,
healthier children. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo.
Emery, R. E. (1999). Marriage, divorce and children’s adjustment (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Faber, A., & Wittenborn, A. (2010). The role of attachment in children’s adjustment to
divorce and remarriage. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 21(2), 89–104. doi:10.1080/
08975353.2010.483625
Finley, G. E. (2006). The myth of the good divorce [Review of Between two worlds: The inner
lives of the children of divorce]. PsycCRITIQUES, 51(35), Article 17.
Fivush, R. (2001). Owning experience: Developing subjective perspectives in autobiographical
narratives. In C. Moore & K. Lemmon (Eds.), The self in time (pp. 35–52). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Furrow, J. L., Bradley, B., & Johnson, S. M. (2004). Emotion focused family therapy with
complex family systems. In V. Bengston, A. Acock, K. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, &
D. Klien (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 220–222). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Furrow, J., & Palmer, G. (2007). EFFT and blended families: Building bonds from the inside
out. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 26(4), 44–58. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2007.26.4.44
Gil, E. (1996). Systematic treatment of families who abuse. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gil, E., & Drewes, A. (Eds.). (2005). Cultural issues in play therapy. New York, NY: Guilford.
Guerney, L., & Guerney, B. (1989). Child relationship enhancement: Family therapy and
parent educations. Person-Centered Review, 4, 344–357.
Hall, T. M., Kaduson, H. G., & Schaefer, C. E. (2002). Fifteen effective play therapy
techniques. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 515–522. doi:10.1037/
0735-7028.33.6.515
Hetherington, E. (1979). Divorce: A child’s perspective. American Psychologist, 34, 851–858.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.851
Hetherington, E. M. (1989). Coping with family transitions: Winners, losers, and survivors.
Child Development, 60, 1–14. doi:10.2307/1131066
148 M. R. HIRSCHFELD AND A. K. WITTENBORN

Hetherington, E. M. (1993). An overview of the Virginia Longitudinal Study of Divorce and

Remarriage with a focus on early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 39–56.
doi:10.1037/0893-3200.7.1.39
Hetherington, E. M. (1999). Social capital and the development of youth from divorced,
nondivorced, and remarried families. In W. A. Collins & B. Laursen (Eds.), Relationships as
developmental contexts: The Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 30,
pp. 177–210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hetherington, E., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1978). Play and social interaction in children following
divorce. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 26–49. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1979.tb00812.x
Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1982). The effects of divorce on parents and
children. In M. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families (pp. 233–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hetherington, E. M., & Stanley-Hagan, M. M. (2002). Parenting in divorced and remarried
families. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Being and becoming a
parent (2nd ed., pp. 287–315). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, S. M. (1996). Creating connection: The practice of emotionally focused marital
therapy. Florence, KY: Brunner/Mazel.
Johnson, S. M. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy: Creating connection
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
Johnson, S. M., Bradley, B., Furrow, J., Lee, A., Palmer, G., Tilley, D., & Wooley, S.
(2005). Becoming an emotionally focused couple therapist: The workbook. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Johnson, S. M., & Lee, A. (2000). Emotionally focused family therapy: Restructuring attachment.
In C. E. Bailey (Ed.), Children in therapy: Using the family as a resource (pp. 112–136).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Johnson, S. M., Maddeaux, C., & Blouin, J. (1998). Emotionally focused family therapy for
bulimia: Changing attachment patterns. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice,
Training, 35, 238–247. doi:10.1037/h0087728
Johnston, J. R., & Campbell, L. (1988). Impasses of divorce. New York NY: Free Press.
Kaduson, H., & Schaefer, C. (Eds.). (1997). 101 favorite play therapy techniques. Northvale,
NJ: Aronson.
Kelly, B., & Emery, R. (2003). Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience
perspectives. Family Relations, 52, 352–362. doi:10.1111/fare.2003.52.issue-4
Kennedy, S., & Ruggles, S. (2014). Breaking up is hard to count: The rise of divorce in the
United States, 1980-2010. Demography, 51, 587–598. doi:10.1007/s13524-013-0270-9
Knell, S. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral play therapy. Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
Kobak, R., Cassidy, J., Lyons-Ruth, K., & Ziv, Y. (2006). Attachment, stress, and psycho-
pathology: A developmental pathways model. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.),
Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 1. Theory and method (2nd ed., pp. 333–369).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Kottman, T. (2001). Adlerian play therapy. International Journal of Play Therapy, 10(2), 1–12.
doi:10.1037/h0089476
Kottman, T., & Schaefer, C. E. (1993). Play therapy is action: A casebook for practitioners.
Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A
meta-analytic review. Family Relations, 49, 25–44. doi:10.1111/fare.2000.49.issue-1
Kurdek, L. (1981). An integrative perspective on children’s divorce adjustment. American
Psychologist, 36, 856–866. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.36.8.856
Landreth, G. (2002). Play therapy: The art of the relationship (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Brunner-Routledge.
 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE 149

LeBlanc, M., & Ritchie, M. (2001). A meta-analysis of play therapy outcomes. Counselling
Psychology Quarterly, 14, 149–163. doi:10.1080/09515070110059142
Lebo, D. (1953). The present status of research on nondirective play therapy. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 17, 177–183. doi:10.1037/h0063570
Leon, K. (2003). Risk and protective factors in young children’s adjustment to parental
divorce: A review of the research. Family Relations, 52, 258–270. doi:10.1111/
fare.2003.52.issue-3
Levitt, E. (1971). Research of psychotherapy with children. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield
(Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (pp. 474–493). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Marquardt, E. (2005). Between two worlds: The inner lives of children of divorce. New York,
NY: Three Rivers.
Mazur, E. (1993). Developmental differences in children’s understanding of marriage,
divorce, and remarriage. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14, 191–212.
doi:10.1016/0193-3973(93)90032-Q
Meltzer, S. (2011). Our divorce culture: A Durkheimian perspective. Journal of Divorce &
Remarriage, 52, 147–163. doi:10.1080/10502556.2011.556962
Miller, W. (1994). Family play therapy: History, theory, and convergence. In C. Shaefer & L.
Carey (Eds.), Family play therapy (pp. 3–19). Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
National Center for Health Statistics. (2006). Births, marriages, divorces, and deaths:
Provisional data for 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/ nvsr54_20.pdf
Nims, D. (2007). Integrating play therapy techniques into solution-focused brief therapy.
International Journal of Play Therapy, 16, 54–68. doi:10.1037/1555-6824.16.1.54
Nims, D., & Duba, J. (2011). Using play therapy techniques in a Bowenian theoretical context.
The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 19(1), 83–89.
doi:10.1177/1066480710387370
Norton, A. J. (1983). Family life cycle: 1980. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 267–275.
doi:10.2307/351506
Oaklander, V. (2001). Gestalt play therapy. International Journal of Play Therapy, 10, 45–55.
doi:10.1037/h0089479
O’Connor, K. (2001). Ecosystemic play therapy. International Journal of Play Therapy, 10(2),
33–44. doi:10.1037/h0089478
O’Connor, T. G. (2006). The persisting effects of early experiences on psychological devel-
opment. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 3. Risk,
disorder, and adaptation (2nd ed., pp. 202–234). New York, NY: Wiley.
Palmer, G., & Efron, D. (2007). Emotionally focused family therapy: Developing the model.
Journal of Systemic Therapies, 26(4), 17–24. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2007.26.4.17
Phillips, R. (1985). Whistling in the dark? A review of play therapy research. Psychotherapy:
Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 22, 752–760. doi:10.1037/h0085565
Piaget, J. (1924). The language and thought of the child. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Pruett, K. D., & Pruett, M. K. (1999). “Only God decides”: Young children’s perceptions of
divorce and the legal system. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 38, 1544–1550. doi:10.1097/00004583-199912000-00016
Ray, D. C. (2006). Evidence-based play therapy. In C. E. Schaefer & H. G. Kaduson (Eds.),
Contemporary play therapy: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 136–157). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Reade, S., Hunter, H., & McMillian, I. (1999). Just playing … is it time wasted? The British
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 157–162. doi:10.1177/030802269906200405
150 M. R. HIRSCHFELD AND A. K. WITTENBORN

Robinson, A. L., Dolhanty, J., & Greenberg, L. (2013). Emotion-focused family therapy for
eating disorders in children and adolescents. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 22,
75–82. doi:10.1002/cpp.1861
Rogers, K. (2004). A theoretical review of risk and protective factors related to post-divorce
adjustment in young children. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 40(3–4), 135–147.
doi:10.1300/J087v40n03_09
Ronen, T. (1992). The way to self-control. Ramat Gan, Israel: Keshet.
Schaefer, C. E. (Ed.). (1993). The therapeutic powers of play. Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
Schaefer, C. (2001). Prescriptive play therapy. International Journal of Play Therapy, 10(2),
57–73. doi:10.1037/h0089480
Schaefer, C. E., & O’Connor, K. J. (1983). Handbook of play therapy. New York, NY: Wiley.
Steinberg, L., Bornstein, M., Vandell, D., & Rook, K. (2011). Lifespan development: Infancy
through adulthood. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Straus, M. B. (1999). No-talk therapy for children and adolescents. New York, NY: Norton.
Thompson, S., Bender, K., Cardoso, J., & Flynn, P. (2011). Experiential activities in family
therapy: Perceptions of caregivers and youth. Journal of Child Family Studies, 20, 560–568.
doi:10.1007/s10826-010-9428-x
Tipplet, G. G., & Konig, L. (2007). Attachment representations in 6-year old children from
one and two parent families in Germany. School Psychology International, 28, 313–330.
doi:10.1177/0143034307078540
Wallerstein, J. S. (1985). Children of divorce: Emerging trends. Psychiatric Clinics of North
America, 8, 837–855.
Wallerstein, J., & Blakeslee, S. (1989). Second chances: Men, women, and children a decade
after divorce. New York, NY: Ticknor & Fields.
Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment
security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child
Development, 71, 684–689. doi:10.1111/cdev.2000.71.issue-3
Whiteside, M. F., & Becker, B. J. (2000). Parental factors and the young child’s postdivorce
adjustment: A meta-analysis with implications for parenting arrangements. Journal of
Family Psychology, 14, 5–26. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.14.1.5
Wittenborn, A., Faber, A., Harvey, A., & Thomas, V. (2006). Emotionally focused family
therapy and play therapy techniques. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 34,
333–342. doi:10.1080/01926180600553472
Zeanah, C., Berlin, L., & Boris, N. (2011). Practitioner review: Clinical applications of
attachment theory and research for infants and young children. The Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 819–833. doi:10.1111/jcpp.2011.52.issue-8
Zimmerman, P., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Spangler, G., & Grossman, K. E. (1997). Attachment
in adolescence: A longitudinal perspective. In W. Koops, J. B. Hoeksema, & D. C.
vandenBoom (Eds.), Development of interaction and attachment: Traditional and non-
traditional approaches (pp. 281–291). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.