What contributes to alienation towards parents in left-behind children: development of alienation ecological system theoretical framework

Abstract

Background

Left-behind children (LBC), defined as those with at least one parent absent from home for over six months, experience greater alienation towards their parents than non-LBC. However, what contributes to their alienation towards parents remains unrevealed. Attachment theory mainly discusses the antecedents of parent–child attachment from parenting behavior. Alienation develops much later during children’s growth than attachment, which may generate gradually from parenting behavior and environment. Combined with ecological system theory, this study aims to develop an alienation ecological system theoretical framework by evaluating the antecedents of alienation towards parents from family and child perspectives within Chinese LBC.

Methods

Between September and October 2022, 23 LBC and 42 parents participated in interviews, following a survey with the inventory of alienation toward parents.

Results

LBC with younger siblings, divorced parents, and mothers with lower educational level reported higher alienation. The interview obtained 3 categories (parental, interpersonal, and personal factors), 8 clusters, and 20 codes. In the alienation theoretical framework, inharmonic parents’ relationship interacted with inadequate parental rearing styles. The two folds of parental factors might contribute to personal factors (lower emotional stability, unique behavioral characteristics, and lower self-esteem). Parental and personal factors interacted with interpersonal factors (lower willingness, less frequency, superficial communication, poor communication results with parents, lower perceived closeness, and less interpersonal interaction), collectively contributed to alienation towards parents.

Conclusion

These findings are among the first to elucidate how parental, interpersonal, and personal factors affect children’s alienation towards parents. The newly developed alienation ecological system theoretical framework tries to understand the development of alienation. These results offer valuable suggestions for future family and school interventions, i.e., to prevent high alienation towards parents in LBC, more attention should be paid on parental, interpersonal, and personal factors.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-025-25953-6.

Introduction

Childhood experiences [23], especially the relationship with parents [17, 34], significantly influence lifetime mental health. The parent–child bond encompasses both parent–child attachment and parent–child alienation. The former refers to the unique affectionate bond between the child and the mother or other primary caregivers before the age of two, which is assessed based on the level of security [41]. In contrast, the latter pertains to negative emotions such as emotional distance, possessiveness, and even control during interactions with parents [70]. Notably, parent–child alienation differs from insecure attachment and detachment. Insecure attachment is a disorder in attachment, involving in maintaining relationship [9]. Detachment, a normative developmental process in adolescence, involves progression toward emotional autonomy while maintaining positive connections [72]. To date, the majority of research on the parent–child bond has concentrated on parent–child attachment [19, 33, 36], with parent–child alienation receiving comparatively less attention. Nevertheless, increasing researches have observed parent–child alienation and identified it as a significant social factor influencing mental health [15, 18, 24, 60, 63]. Accumulated alienation may lead to suboptimal behavior and mental health problems such as depression in children [63]. Despite this, the parent–child alienation remains undervalued.

High alienation towards parents has been often found in children who experience prolonged and early separation with their parents [2, 61, 62]. The rapid urbanization in China has exacerbated urban–rural disparities in income, healthcare, and education, driving adults to seek employment in urban areas, resulting in left-behind children (LBC, those with one or both parents absent over six months due to work) in rural areas [15]. According to the 2016 survey conducted by the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Public Security, the number of rural LBC in China is 9.02 million [12], and the number is increasing. Our previous work has developed an Inventory of Alienation towards Parents (IAP) and applied it to Chinese LBC [75], revealing higher parental alienation among LBC. Among its influential factors, left-behind status [5, 15] and children’s personal status [5, 15, 57] have been reported. Many other factors might also influence children’s alienation towards parents such as children’s interpersonal factors. However, due to the limited attention span and educational level of LBC, as well as the limited time and educational level of their parents, the contributors to alienation towards parents in LBC remain unexplored systematically.

Based on attachment theory [9], three types of attachment patterns exist: secure, avoidant, and ambivalent attachment. The antecedents of attachment have predominantly been examined through maternal behavior, focusing on mother-infant interaction such as crying, feeding, face-to-face engagement, body contact, separation, and reunion [47]. A meta-analysis on parent–child attachment [42, 56] explored the origin of attachment mainly through parenting behaviors: more responsiveness, enhanced support for child autonomy, more behavioral control strategies, and less harsh control. However, in another investigation [42, 56], three domains were examined concerning the relationship between stressful life-events and the severity of child anxiety: one child factor (e.g., locus of control), two parent factors (e.g., parenting stress), and two parent–child relationship factors (e.g., parenting style). Similar with attachment, parent–child alienation might be generated from parental behaviors (e.g., rearing style). However, unlike attachment, which unusually forms at the first two years of childhood, alienation often develops in the later stages of childhood [35]. While attachment theory provides a crucial lens for understanding the emotional foundation of parent–child bonds, it primarily focuses on early childhood and dyadic interactions. Complementing this perspective, ecological systems theory [10], which emphasizes interactions between individual development and environmental contexts (i.e., family, school, culture), offers a broader framework to contextualize parent–child bonds within the nested social environments. Thus, integrating these two theories is essential, as each alone provides an incomplete explanation. The ecological–attachment synthesis explicates how macro-systemic forces (e.g., urban–rural disparities) disrupt the micro-system (e.g., family), which subsequently impairs the attachment mechanism, ultimately fostering alienation. However, this remains unexplored, which is potentially important to fully understand the origin of alienation towards parents in LBC and consequently form a theoretical alienation framework.

Importantly, most investigations referring to parent–child relationship only recruit children as participants [11] rather than parent–child dyadic samples, which result in limited empirical evidence. Moreover, many studies have focused on the quantitative assessment of the status of parent–child relationships [44], as well as their influential factors and potential effects [59, 74]. While the qualitative exploration into the origin of alienation towards parents is deficient. Notably, quantitative questionnaires, that rely on self-reporting, often provide fixed and limited information and may be imprecise owing to selection bias or educational level constraints. This underscores the need for qualitative research that incorporating parent–child dyadic perspectives into the research field of alienation towards parents.

In brief, based on the attachment theory and ecological system theory, the current study aimed to develop an alienation framework by understanding the effect of parental factors, children’s interpersonal factors, and children’s personal factors on alienation towards parents through qualitative interview of parent–child dyad in the context of Chinese LBC. Our hypothesis posits that these factors collectively influence the development of children’s alienation towards parents.

Methods

Participants

Between September and October 2022, children were eligible for this study if they were enrolled in the fourth to sixth grades of primary school in rural China and possessed the ability to read and write in Chinese. Children were excluded if they were reluctant to participate, been non-LBC, or been diagnosed with severe physical or mental disorders. Initially, 551 children completed the screening questionnaire about alienation. 41 LBC (aged 9–12 years, M/F: 21/20) were selected from the high- (n = 148) and low-alienation (n = 132) groups separately and further invited to take part in a following interview. Of these, 38 parent–child pairs (19 in high-alienation group) agreed to participate. The interview stopped after information saturation. As a result, 23 parent–child pairs completed the interview, including 23 children (11 in the low-alienation group, M/F: 5/6, and 12 in the high-alienation group, M/F: 7/5) and 42 parents in both the low-alienation group (10 mothers and 11 fathers) and the high-alienation group (11 mothers and 10 fathers) completed the interview. The group classification employed a standardized alienation score threshold [53]: participants were classified into high- and low-alienation groups based on ± 1 SD from the mean scores for alienation. See Fig. 1 for details about the recruitment.

Fig. 1.

Flowchart of recruitment

Half of LBC were female, aged around 10 years and in 4–6 grades, 69.57% had siblings, half of them with both parent absent and grandparents as home caregiver. Parents aged around 40 years, majority of them stayed in marriage but received middle-school or lower education. On average, children experienced a left-behind status for 5.3 years, with the youngest age at initiation being 1 year and the oldest being 10 years.1 In the low-alienation group, 63.6% of children experienced parental separation lasting from six months to two years; children in the high-alienation group reported relatively longer separation with parents, although without statistically-significant difference. Annual household income per capita was under 2,300 ¥ in 50% of high-alienation families and exceeded 10,000 ¥ in 63.6% of low-alienation families (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1.

Detailed information of interviewed left-behind children (n = 23)

Score of alienation	Gender	Age (years)			Education Level			Types of siblings	Types of parents absent	Type of home caregivers	Marital status of parents
		Child	Mother	Father	Child	Mother	Father
Low	Male	10	42	43	Grade 5	2	2	Elder	Both	Grandparents	1
Low	Female	10	43	45	Grade 5	3	3	Elder	Father	Mother or father	1
Low	Female	10	35	39	Grade 5	3	3	Elder	Both	Grandparents	3
Low	Female	9	41	43	Grade 4	2	2	Elder	Both	Grandparents	1
Low	Female	9	39	42	Grade 4	2	2	None	Both	Grandparents	1
Low	Female	9	43	48	Grade 4	3	3	None	Father	Mother or father	1
Low	Female	10	45	46	Grade 5	2	3	Younger	Both	Grandparents	1
Low	Male	11	47	45	Grade 6	3	2	None	Mother	Mother or father	1
Low	Male	10	42	39	Grade 5	3	3	Elder	Both	Grandparents	1
Low	Male	10	/	38	Grade 5	/	1	Younger	Father	Mother or father	1
Low	Male	10	33	40	Grade 5	3	1	None	Father	Mother or father	1
High	Male	11	32	33	Grade 6	1	2	Younger	Both	Grandparents	3
High	Female	11	30	29	Grade 6	1	3	Younger	Both	Grandparents	3
High	Male	10	29	34	Grade 5	3	3	Younger	Father	Mother or father	1
High	Female	10	43	41	Grade 5	3	3	Younger	Both	Grandparents	1
High	Female	11	48	49	Grade 6	3	3	Elder	Both	Other relatives	3
High	Male	11	40	42	Grade 6	3	2	Younger	Father	Mother or father	1
High	Male	10	41	43	Grade 5	3	3	Younger	Both	Grandparents	1
High	Male	10	/	42	Grade 5	/	3	None	Both	Other relatives	3
High	Female	10	45	/	Grade 5	3	/	Younger	Father	Mother or father	2
High	Female	9	40	/	Grade 4	3	/	None	Mother	Grandparents	3
High	Male	10	38	46	Grade 5	3	2	None	Father	Other relatives	2
High	Male	11	44	47	Grade 6	3	3	Younger	Father	Mother or father	1

Table 2.

Demographic differences between left-behind children with low and high alienation

	Low alienation (n = 11)	High alienation (n = 12)	t/Z/χ2□□	p
Gender of children, n(%)			0.537	0.684
Male	5(45.5%)	7(58.3%)
Female	6(54.5%)	5(41.7%)
Age of children, M(SD)	9.82(0.60)	10.33(0.65)	−1.963	0.063
Age of mother	41.00(4.29)	39.09(6.28)	0.804	0.431
Age of father	42.55(3.27)	40.60(6.55)	0.874	0.393
Years of left-behind	4.45(3.05)	6.08(2.19)	−1.388	0.165
Length of parental separation, n (%)			2.265	0.322
6 months to < 2 years	7 (63.6%)	4 (33.3%)
2 to < 4 years	2 (18.2%)	5 (41.7%)
4–6 years	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
> 6 years	2 (18.2%)	3 (25.0%)
Grade of children, n (%)			3.712	0.156
Grade 4	3 (27.3%)	1 (8.3%)
Grade 5	7 (63.6%)	6 (50.0%)
Grade 6	1 (9.1%)	5 (41.7%)
Annual household income per capita (¥), n (%)			7.654	0.054
≤ 2,300	1 (9.1%)	6 (50.0%)
2,301—6,000	1 (9.1%)	3 (25.0%)
6,001—9,999	2 (18.2%)	1 (8.3%)
≥ ¥10,000	7 (63.6%)	2 (16.7%)
Education level of mother, n (%)			6.567	0.037
College or higher	0 (0.0%)	2 (18.2%)
High school	4 (40.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Middle school or lower#	6 (60.0%)	9 (81.8%)
Education level of father, n (%)			2.434	0.296
College or higher	2 (18.2%)	0 (0.0%)
High school	4 (36.4%)	3 (30.0%)
Middle school or lower	5 (45.4%)	7 (70.0%)
Siblings, n (%)			6.378	0.041
No siblings	4 (36.4%)	3 (25.0%)
Elder brothers and sisters	5 (45.4%)	1 (8.3%)
Younger brothers and sisters	2 (18.2%)	8 (66.7%)
Type of parents absent, n (%)			0.068	0.967
Father absent	4 (36.4%)	5 (41.7%)
Mother absent	1 (9.1%)	1 (8.3%)
Both absent	6 (54.5%)	6 (50.0%)
Type of home caregivers, n (%)			3.165	0.206
Grandparents	6 (54.5%)	5 (41.7%)
Mother or father	5 (45.5%)	4 (33.3%)
Relatives	0 (0.0%)	3 (25.0%)
Marital status of parents, n (%)			6.302	0.043
Non-divorced	10 (90.9%)	5 (41.7%)
Divorced	0 (0.0%)	2 (16.6%)
Divorced with remarried parents	1 (9.1%)	5 (41.7%)

^#In this study, a low level of education was defined as attainment of middle school education or lower, in accordance with the Compulsory Education Law of the People’s Republic of China (Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China. (1986). Compulsory Education Law of the People’s Republic of China. https://www.gov.cn/guoqing/2021-10/29/content_5647617.htm)

Instruments

Socio-demographic information was collected using a self-designed questionnaire. The items included gender, age, left-behind status, length of parental separation, siblings, types of home caregivers of children, annual household income per catipa, as well as gender, age, marriage, and educational level of parents.

The Chinese version of the Inventory of Alienation toward Parents (IAP) was included to assess the level of alienation towards mother and father in children, which was developed in our previous work [15].This inventory comprised of paternal and maternal forms, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of 0.887 and 0.821 respectively in this study. Higher scores indicate higher level of alienation.

Structured interview (Table S1), based on ecological system theory [10], attachment theory [42, 56], and attachment investigations [42, 56], three categories (parental factors, children’s interpersonal factors, and children’s personal factors) were established. Following 4^thround of research group discussions, 8 clusters, 20 codes, and 22 questions were developed, which were subsequently discussed and revised by 8 psychologists (two professors and six assistant professors, specializing in developmental psychology). To further assess the applicability of the interview outline, a preliminary interview was conducted with two randomly selected children, leading to specific question adjustments that were excluded from formal interviews. The formal interview outlines contained three categories (parental factors, children’s interpersonal factors, and children’s personal factors), 7 clusters (parental rearing styles, communication with parents, quality of intimate relationship, emotional stability, behavioral characteristic, self-esteem, life-events), 19 codes (warmth, penalty, approval/denial, assistance/neglect, adequate/excessive control, parental preference; desire for communication, frequency of communication, depth of communication, effect of communication, perceived closeness, interpersonal interaction activities; emotional stability, self-centered/sociable, behavioral consistency, tendency of lie, coping style, self-esteem, life-events), and 20 questions, which were administered by trained psychological personnel. Given the intergroup comparison of interview data and characteristics of the population (children and 66.7% parents with lower educational level, dialectal variations and unstable signal-quality during parent telephone interviews, and children’s limited attention-spans), we employed structured interviews to ensure consistency and intergroup comparability. However, this approach also reduced narrative richness and the emergence of new themes. Technically, we incorporated open-ended follow-up questions within standardized prompts, such as “Could you elaborate on that?” “Anything else you want to add before we move on” “Anything else you'd like to say before end”—to enrich the interview data.

Procedures

This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Army Medical University (approval number: 2021–28-03) in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines for research involving human participants, especially minors. Children and their parents were invited to participate via telephone and WeChat applications. Researchers provided comprehensive information about the study’s objectives, confidentiality, benefits and potential risks, and right to withdraw any time.. All participants provide written informed consent. The questionnaire investigation on children was administered in primary school classrooms. Interviews were conducted face-to-face with children, and through telephone in parents accompanied with informed recording, in a quiet reading room of primary school. Considering the influence of interviewer’s role on disclosure dynamics such as punishment, the interviewer, a doctoral researcher with training in psychotherapy (anonymous to participants), contacted participants as part of research project which observing children’ family dynamics and parent–child relationships, and maintained a neutral stance throughout the interviews, thereby minimizing the social desirability bias. Even though, some participants– especially parents – might still withhold some socially undesirable information, which was compensated by information from another role of parent–child dyads in a sense. Data collection continued until information saturation was reached [4]. Finally, 23 LBC and 42 parents were interviewed, although 38parent-child pairs of agreed upon. After interview, children and parents were debriefed and gifted.

Data analysis

The chi-square (χ²) test and independent t-test were conducted to analyze demographic differences. The analysis of interview data was based on the existing literature [58]. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by two doctoral researchers (coders) trained in qualitative interview data analysis using ATLAS.ti v7.2. To ensure coding reliability, both coders kept reflexive journals documenting their pre-existing assumptions and personal backgrounds prior to analysis. Coding discrepancies were addressed through consensus meetings with the principal investigator.

The seven steps proposed by Colaizzi [14] were employed to explore the meaning and essence of alienation towards parents in this study. In step-one, two coders repeatedly read all the transcripts to gain a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of alienation towards parents. The review data of parents and children were analyzed equally and independently. In step-two, the significant statements related to this phenomenon were identified. Step-three involved deriving meanings from these significant statements to generate initial codes about alienation. Data of high-and low-alienation parent–child dyads were checked separately, each parent–child pair as an integrated unit. The differences in the descriptions of identical events within these dyads were compared to elucidate the underlying dynamic causes of alienation. Through team consensus meetings (collective discussion, conceptual clarification, and iterative refinement), initially 31 codes were refined; those with overlapping meanings were merged to enhance their conceptual clarity, resulting in a final set of 20 codes. To enhance coding effectiveness, inter-coder reliability assessments were conducted on 10% of randomly selected transcription texts. After three rounds of consensus meetings to resolve discrepancies, Cohen’s Kappa coefficient reached 0.71, indicating a good reliability. In step-four, the codes were grouped into thematic clusters based on ecological systems theory including micro-system (e.g., family, school), and macro-system (e.g., cultural), as well as conceptual similarities (e.g., the cluster of “raring style of parents” synthesized codes such as “warmth” “penalty” and “control”). These connections were visualized and synthesized using ATLAS.ti’s viewing function. This iterative process finally formed 8 clusters, which were further abstracted into 3 categories. Step-five entailed an in-depth examination of the phenomenon to determine its fundamental structure. Step-six required the elimination of any misused or redundant descriptions of this fundamental structure. Finally, in step-seven, to enhance credibility, a member checking was conducted. The preliminary thematic structure was sent to the participants through telephone. The requirement was: participants confirmed that the themes accurately represented their experiences with no fundamental changes.

Results

Differences on demographic information between LBC with high and low alienation

Compared to LBC with lower alienation towards parents, LBC with higher alienation were more likely to be older, t (19) = −1.963, p = 0.063, have lower annual household income per capita, χ² (2, 23) = 7.654, p = 0.054, have younger siblings rather than older ones, χ² (2, 23) = 6.378, p = 0.041. Additionally, their mothers tended to have lower education level, χ² (2, 21) = 6.567, p = 0.037, and their parents experienced higher rates of divorce, χ² (2, 23) = 6.302, p = 0.043. However, the two groups did not differ significantly in terms of the gender ratio, grade, parental age, education level of father, type of parental absence, years of left-behind, length of parental separation, and type of home caregiver. See Tables 1 and 2 for details.

Category-cluster-code results of interview (Table 3) and development of alienation ecological system theoretical framework (Fig. 2)

Table 3.

Examples of children and parents’ statements for interview questions

Categories	Clusters	Codes	Statement(Children)		Statement(Parents)
			Low alienation	High alienation	Low alienation	High alienation
Parental	Parents’ relationship	Harmony	Mother said: “your father and me can remain friends even if we are no longer spouse (divorced).”	My parents would fight when my mother gambled	I have occasional arguments with my wife, but overall, we are harmonious	The relationship between my husband and me is strained; we maintain the marriage for the sake of our child
	Rearing style of parents	Warmth	I experience a sense of warmth in the presence of my parents. My father expresses his affection by greeting my elder sister and me with hugs upon his return home	When I was ill, my mother gave me money and sent me to purchase medication independently, unwiling to accompany me	Our family experiences happiness. During my time at home, we shared affection through embracing and kissing, fostering a warm atmosphere	I ensure the child’s eating and wearing, that is all
		Adequate/excessive penalty	When I did something wrong, mother would bring out the facts and reason, and teach me what I should do next time	Father treats me harshly. When I wrote wrongly, father would warn me. If I repeated the error, he would beat me hard	When my child did something wrong, I would teach him how to do it next time. I might not beat him, only criticize	When my child did something wrong, I would criticize him. If I were very angry, I might beat him
		Approve/deny	Mother praises me more. Even when I made mistakes, her criticism included praise, allowing me to naturally recognize my errors	Mother always criticized me if I got a lower score at school. However, she said nothing if I received a good score at school	I will appraise if my child achieves well. However, if she does poorly, I will help her to find out the reason	I never praise him, and I will criticize him if he does something wrong
		Assistance/neglect	When I was in trouble, mother would comfort me and my father would teach me what to do next time	My parents did not help me when I was in trouble	We will teach him what to do if he is in trouble	I seldom care about her, except to give some living expenses
		Adequate/excessive control	Mother let me do some housework such as washing and cleaning except that I am ill	Sometimes mother treats me like a servant. I do everything and she just watches TV at home	My child will do housework actively such as cleaning	I will require him to do housework and not allow him idle at home
			If I want to go out with friends, parents emphasize safety first and set a curfew	My father restricts me from engaging in activities that my peers are permitted to do, for the sake of safety	If my child wants to spend time with her friends, I will support her, if it is not dangerous	Sometimes she just wants to out with her friends, yet I prohibit her from doing so
		Parental preference	Parents treat me and my younger brother equally	My mother favors my little brother—each time we clash, she blames me	My wife and me treat our children equally	Even if the younger one messes up, I still end up blaming the older kid. No wonder he thinks that I’m playing favorites
Interpersonal	Communication with parents	Desire for communication: high/low	Sometimes I called my parents actively, and sometimes they called me	I rarely initiate calls to my parents	He shares with us about his life and studies	He rarely answers my phone, unless I insist
		Frequency of communication: more/less	I talked to my mother every other day, sometimes talked every day including in vacation	In general, I did not talk to my parents, because that they were not at home	My wife and I connect with our child very often, we both care about him very much	He did not tell me when he had any trouble. I gave him a phone-call every several months
		In-depth communication: deep/superficial	I told my mother what happened today when I was at home, including upsetting events and exams	We met only when I was ill. They cared about nothing about me except my illness	He told me that he had good friends in school. I noticed that he was very sad when one of his friends transferred	He gave me a phone call only when he needs money or cannot handle a school requirement. He seldom cared about my life
		Effect of communication: good/poor	I feel close to my parents. I miss my father when he leaves for work at a very distant place	Sometimes I fear my parents. I might wonder whether I did something wrong when their facial expressions were horrible	He cares about us actively. Once I got a cold, he came and asked with care: "Are you cold? Do you feel bad? Do you need hot water?"	My child seldom cares about us whether we are tired
	Quality of intimate relationship	Perceived closeness: strong/weak	I enjoy spending time with my parents, teachers, and classmates	My relationship with my parents is emotionally distant, and I have no close friends at school	My child has a good relationship with teacher and several close friends at school	She is closer to her grandmother. She is distant from me, addresses me by my first name, and never mentions her father
		Interpersonal interaction activities: more/less	I will tell my good friend about my trouble and words from the bottom of my heart. They will help me if they can, or they will accompany me if they cannot help me more	I have friends at school, but I cannot disclose my innermost thoughts to them	He said everything to his elder sister, this closeness may be because of similar age	I did not know anything about her behavior at school
Personal	Emotional stability	High/low	I am often light-hearted, with sharp emotion variation sometimes	I am concerned about my younger brother and grandmother
	Behavior character	Self-centered/sociable	I love to help others, e.g., I will pick up the falling things for others	I only have one relatively close classmate. I feel difficulty in communicating with others; they are far away from me
		Behavior consistency/inconsistency	I am always lively at home or at school	I am quieter in front of my parents because of fear. I am lively at school
		Tendency of lie: high/low	Sometimes I give white lie. For example, I want to go out with my classmates, I tell my family that my homework is done	I lie to parents or teachers to escape penalty
		Coping style: effective/poor	When I was in trouble, I discussed them with my classmates first and then asked for help from parents. Most of the time, they could help me	I deal with difficulties on my own
	Self-esteem	High/low	I am self-confident and do not feel inferior to others	I am not good enough compared with others, for example, my academic scores
	Perceived life-events	/	My performance declined following my father’s death. I often cry when I think of him	My grandmother treated me very well. I felt very sad when she died the year ago

Fig. 2.

Ecological system theoretical framework for alienation towards parents

Based on the 20 structured interview questions in Table S1, we identified 3 categories, 8 clusters, and 20 codes through the interview. The three categories of contributing factors were parental, interpersonal, and personal categories.

Parental factors

In parental factors, 2 clusters (parents’ relationship and parental rearing style) and 7 codes were identified.

Notably, although the parents’ relationship was not included in the initial interview questions in Table S1, the responses from both parents and children in Table 3 suggested that inharmonic parents’ relationship may influence the rearing style of parents and contribute to alienation towards parents in LBC.

Examples of parents’ relationships:

High alienation:

Parent: “The relationship between my husband and me is strained; we maintain the marriage for the sake of our child.”

LBC: “My parents would fight when my mother gambled.”

Low alienation:

Parent: “I have occasional arguments with my wife, but overall, we are harmonious.”

LBC: “Mother said:“Your father and me can remain friends even if we are no longer spouse (divorced)’.”

Interviews also showed that LBC with higher alienation towards parents reported perceiving their parents’ rearing style as less adequate. This perception encompassed 6 codes: low emotional warmth, excessive penalty, excessive control, lack of approve or excessive deny, insufficient assistance or neglect, and parental preference for siblings. These findings were corroborated by the responses from both the children and their parents.

Examples of rearing style of parents (excessive control):

High alienation:

Parent: “Sometimes she just wants to go out with her friends, yet I prohibit her from doing so.”

LBC: “My father restricts me from engaging in activities that my peers are permitted to do, for the sake of safety.”

Low alienation:

Parent: “If my child wants to spend time with her friends, I support her as long as it is safe.”

LBC: “If I want to go out with friends, parents emphasize safety first and set a curfew.”

Interpersonal factors

In interpersonal factors, 2 clusters (communication with parents and quality of intimate relationship) and 6 codes were identified.

In communication with parents, 4 codes were identified: lower desire for communication, less frequency of communication, superficial communication, and poor communication results with parents in LBC with higher alienation. They also reported poor intimate relationships with teachers and friends, which included 2 codes: lower perceived closeness and less interpersonal interaction activities. These findings were derived from the responses of both the children and parents.

Examples of communication with parents (lower desire for communication):

High alienation:

Parent: “He rarely answers my phone unless I insist.”

LBC: “I rarely initiate calls to my parents.”

Low alienation:

Parent: “He shares with us about his life and studies.”

LBC: “Sometimes I called my parents actively, and sometimes they called me.”

Examples of quality of intimate relationship:

High alienation:

Parent: “She is closer to her grandmother. She is distant from me, addresses me by my first name, and never mentions her father.”

LBC: “My relationship with my parents is emotionally distant, and I have no close friends at school.”

Low alienation:

Parent: “My child has a good relationship with his teacher and several close friends at school.”

LBC: “I enjoy spending time with my parents, teachers, and classmates.”

Personal factors

In personal factors, 4 clusters (emotional stability, unique behavioral characteristics, self-esteem, and life-events) and 7 codes were identified. In which, 4 codes were identified in the unique behavioral characteristics cluster: self-centered, inconsistent behavior, higher tendency to lie, and poor coping style. However, the two groups did not differ in negative life-events, i.e., both groups reported significant negative life-events and significant influences by life-events.

Examples of coping styles:

High alienation: “I deal with difficulties on my own.”

Low alienation: “When I was in troubles, I discussed them with my classmates first and then asked for help from parents. Most of the time, they could help me.”

Together, the interview results suggested a potential AES theoretical framework (Fig. 2, encompassing 3 categories, 8 clusters, and 20 codes) to understand the development of alienation towards parents. This framework comprises parental, interpersonal and personal categories. In this framework, inharmonic parents’ relationship interacts with inadequate parental rearing style. These two folds of parental factors have an influence on interpersonal factors. Moreover, parental and interpersonal factors interact with personal factors. Collectively, parental, interpersonal and personal factors contributed to the alienation towards parents. Additionally, parental divorce may increase alienation through poor parents’ relationship, while lower levels of maternal education and having younger siblings may increase alienation though influencing parental rearing style.

Discussion

Drawing upon attachment theory [9, 47] and ecological system theory [10], this study developed an alienation ecological system (AES) framework by exploring the role of parental, children’s interpersonal and children’s personal factors in the development of alienation towards parents. The interview yielded 3 categories, 8 clusters and 20 codes, confirming a combined effect of parental, children’s interpersonal and personal factors on the alienation towards parents.

In China, rural parental migration due to urban–rural disparities (macro-system) may disrupt the family interaction (micro-system) through parent–child separation [32]. From an integrated ecological-attachment perspective, prolonged separation undermines the secure-base function proposed by attachment theory [64], thereby weakening the parent–child emotional bonds. Within this strained micro-system, rural parents often use simplistic disciplinary control such as physical punishment or material rewards [57]. In this study, compared to those with lower level of alienation towards parents, LBC with higher level of alienation towards parents often had younger siblings, divorced parents, and mothers with lower education level. The reason might be that the presence of younger siblings may elevate LBC’s alienation risk, as younger siblings typically receive more attention and protection from parents, affecting parenting behavior and consequently increasing alienation. After parental divorce, LBC may loss the chance to daily communicate with one of parents and face a complex web of emotional and psychological challenges, which increases the risk for high alienation towards parents [16, 50, 66, 67]. LBC with lower educated mother may also show higher alienation towards parents, as the mothers’ limited knowledge, may lead to suboptimal parenting strategies such as physical punishment and strict discipline, which reduced emotional responsiveness in children and fostered distance [68]. Moreover, older school-age children possess higher study demanding, which increased parent–child conflict [38] and risk for alienation towards parents. Poverty of family may increase economic stress of parents, which is more likely to form strict discipline [52] and generates alienation. Together, within the urban–rural disparities macro-system (distal factor), the family environment as a micro-system (proximal factor) is directly affected by these changes. Proximal factors in this micro-system, such as parental divorce, more younger-siblings, and mother's lower educational level, directly disrupt attachment processes and form alienation. Therefore, in left-behind families, children who have younger siblings, single-parent, less educated mothers, or harsh parenting experience should be paid further attention and efficient psychosocial resources to prevent high alienation towards parents.

Based on ecological system theory [10], parent–child attachment theory [42, 56], and attachment investigation [42, 56], this study developed an alienation ecological system framework to explaining the origins of alienation towards parents in LBC. Sample selection in this study enhanced the credibility of this framework. Two LBC groups with high and low levels of parent–child alienation were compared to reflect differences from opposite perspectives. The sample size of 23 left-behind children and 42 parents in interview achieved information saturation, which aligned with other qualitative interview studies [48] and left-behind children study [46]. In Western contexts, parent–child alienation involves parental manipulation following divorce, wherein one parent undermines the child's relationship with the other [29]. In contrast, the AES framework views alienation as emotional withdrawal co-constructed by broader socioeconomic macro-systems (e.g., urban–rural disparities), disrupted micro-systems (parental and interpersonal categories), and distorted child’s cognitions and behaviors (personal factors). While family systems theory [8] describes reciprocal interactions within families, the AES framework explains how ecological pressures become internalized as alienation.

In parental factors, 2 clusters (parents’ relationship and parental rearing style) and 7 codes were identified, aligning with the micro-system in ecological systems theory and the care-giving components of attachment theory. Specifically, inharmonic parents’ relationship and inadequate parental rearing style directly undermine the attachment bond by failing to provide a secure base, which is the primary driver of alienation. For instance, poor parent’s relationship may change the rearing behavior of parents in a sense since that children are the fruit of love, and sharp difference in parenting attitudes between couple may deteriorate relationship as well [30, 73]. Moreover, low warmth and lack of assistance reflect insufficient support from parents, which may generate from socioeconomic stress and parents’ relationship as well as their character foundation [20, 52]. Comparatively, excessive penalty, deny, and control reflect inadequate discipline, which may generate from social education stress and parents’ belief about rearing [40, 43, 69]. Notably, insufficient warmth and assistance may render perceived support of children, and increased emotional distance. Excessive punishment may function through attachment rupture mechanisms that convey parental dislike to children [25]. This may undermine relationship security, trigger children’s fear and form alienation attitude [26]. Parental preference on sibling reflects parents’ belief about rearing equality [1]. The three parts differentiated in potential social-personal sources but correlated with each other (Figure S1), which need further experimental evidence. The results suggest that inadequate rearing style [42] and poor parents’ relationship [71] may accumulate disappointment and prompt emotional alienation towards parents. These parental factors serve as proximal mechanisms that convert distal risks within the micro-system.

In interpersonal factors, 2 clusters (communication with parents and quality of intimate relationship) and 6 codes were identified. Poor communication with parents interacted with poor intimate relationships. This impaired communication (micro-system) is both a symptom and a cause of insecure attachment, reflecting weaker emotional bonds and alienation [7]. For example, less frequency of communication and superficial communication between parents and children may result in poor emotional involvement and poor communication outcome. Limited communication undermines a crucial pathway for emotion socialization, rendering the child’s internal perception and development in emotional interaction [21] and results in emotional alienation towards parents. Low communication desire might be a promoter and also a result of poor communication, a kind of virtuous cycle [27, 63]. Additionally, lower perceived closeness might reduce frequency of interpersonal activities. Poor intimate relationships might be a consequence of poor communication, which also impaired communication quality reversely (Figure S1) [49]. Therefore, dysfunctional micro-systems, as evidenced by poor communication with both parents and peers, contribute to a child’s isolation and exacerbate the loneliness associated with insecure attachment, collectively contribute to a child’s alienation towards parents [28]. These interpersonal factors serve as proximal factors of alienation and exert a bidirectional impact on the parental factors. Notably, alienation towards parents may reduce the communication desire towards parents reciprocally. Obviously, the interaction between communication desire and alienation result needs more exploration.

In personal factors, 4 clusters and 7 codes were identified. Children with higher alienation towards parents reported lower emotional stability, unique behavior type, and lower self-esteem. The results revealed that children with higher alienation towards parents typically displayed emotional instability [22] and lower self-esteem [55], which may be generated from inadequate rearing [65] and poor relationship with parents [18, 63]. During long-term grown-up process with emotional instability and low-esteem, behavioral characters (self-centeredness, poor coping style, inconsistent behavior and higher tendency to lie) emerge gradually. These personal characteristics make children view interactions with their parents as pointless, leading them to withdraw emotionally which strengthens their feeling of alienation, both stem from and contribute to parental factors [37, 39] and strained parent–child interaction [37, 39], creating a cycle of alienation (Figure S1). Importantly, both groups reported experiencing significant negative life-events and their substantial impact, suggesting that the life-event itself does not necessarily exacerbate alienation of children towards parents. Instead, parents’ relationship, parental rearing style, children’s interpersonal relationship, and children’s personal psychosocial characteristics mattered significantly.

The newly developed theoretical framework of the alienation ecological system conceptualizes alienation as arising from the interplay of parental and children’s interpersonal and personal factors. Specifically, distal factors (e.g., social environment) disrupted the family micro-system, thereby compromising family dynamics. For instance, parental rejection affects child’s ability to form intimate relationships, leading to emotional withdrawal in interpersonal interactions [45]. Whereas this emotional withdrawal may be interpreted as rejection by the parent, thereby reinforcing harsh parenting [76]. Inadequate rearing and poor relationship contribute to the emergence of maladaptive personal characteristics [3, 6]. These personal factors act as significant proximal drivers of alienation, perpetuating a cycle as they simultaneously reacted upon the parental and interpersonal categories [37, 39, 51]. In which, the impact of parental behavior on alienation is similar to that of attachment theory [9, 47]. Differently, alienation was developed gradually in children’s later life rather than the first two years. During which, social culture (macro-system: urban–rural disparity), family (micro-system), and personal factors might have a combined effect. Thus, the current theoretical framework incorporates children’s macro- and micro-systems and personal variables into the theory model. This framework broadens the application of ecological system theory in mitigating parental alienation and offers insights into interventions aimed at enhancing mental health from parent–child relationship. For instance, family-facilitated love capacity training may enhance parental and parent–child relationships. Meanwhile, school-facilitated training in emotional and stress regulation and cognitive-behavioral techniques can bolster children’s emotional stability and coping skills [13, 31, 54], thereby boost mental health in children. This framework facilitates a systematic understanding of alienation development and provides recommendations for integrating family and parent–child relationship into basic mental health promotion plans. Nevertheless, this theoretical framework is currently in its nascent stage of development. Future research are encouraged to validate and extend it by adopting a “theory-method-analysis” validation approach, encompassing construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis), predictive validity (longitudinal study), cultural universality (comparative study across multiple countries), and practical application (randomized controlled trial), et al.

Limitations: First, the participants were recruited exclusively from LBC aged 9–12 years in rural Chinese primary schools, which limits the generalizability of the findings to urban children in China or those in transnational contexts. Second, the use of structured interviews restricted the richness and spontaneity of the qualitative data collected. Third, exclusive reliance on interview data may affect the objectivity of the results. However, the newly developed AES framework helps to understand the development of alienation systematically and further helps to prevent mental health problems generated from poor parent–child relationship.

Conclusion

In summary, this study develops an alienation ecological system framework that synthesizes ecological systems and attachment theories to explain the multifaceted development of alienation among LBC. It identifies key contributing factors across parental, interpersonal, and personal dimensions, highlighting their interconnected roles in shaping children’s alienation. The framework gives valuable suggestions for future family and school interventions, i.e., to prevent high alienation towards parents in children, greater emphasis should be placed on parents’ relationships and rearing styles, children’s interpersonal interactions, and children’s personal characteristics, as these factors contribute to the formation of a more harmonious parent–child relationship. Future research should validate and refine this model through longitudinal, cross-culture, and intervention-based studies.

Abbreviations

LBC

Left-behind children

IAP

Inventory about alienation towards parents

Authors’ contributions

Xiaoxiao Sun collected and analyzed the data, Xuemei Qin collected the data, Peixia Shi collected the data, Qin Dai designed the study and revised the manuscript.

Funding

Doctor Dai claimed that this work was supported by the natural science funding of Chongqing (CSTB2025NSCQ-GPX0065), Social Science Foundation of Chongqing (2023NDYB94), and the education project of Army medical university (2023yjsB02).

Data availability

Data which analyzed in this study was available upon required.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013. All procedures involving human subjects/patients were approved by the Ethics Committee of Human Research of the Army Medical University (2021–28-03).

Consent for publication

This is to confirm that the manuscript we are submitting has never been published before. Also, it is not currently being considered for publication in any other journal.

All the listed authors have carefully reviewed and approved this manuscript. We all agree to submit it to your journal for publication and are aware of and accept the journal's publication policies.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.