REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 1
1
This research was supported by Grantová agentura České republiky (GA16-03059S).
* Institute for Research on Children Youth and Families, Masaryk University, Email:
tomoumemura@mail.muni.cz
Development of Multiple Attachment Relationships from Infancy to Adulthood: A
Theoretical and Empirical Review of Attachment Hierarchy1
Tomo Umemura*, Lenka Lacinová*, Eliška Horská*, & Lenka Pivodová*
Research on attachment theory has been growing in the past four decades. Previous research
has particularly focused on two types of attachment relationships (1) between parents and
their children and (2) between romantic partners. One reason for these research focuses is that
these relationships are both important in childhood and adulthood, respectively. That is,
people usually most frequently direct proximity, security, and comfort (called “attachment
behaviors”) toward parents in childhood and then toward the romantic partner in adulthood.
Associations between these two types of relationships have been empirically demonstrated.
For example, individuals who had secure relationships with their parents in childhood are
more likely to have a secure relationship with their romantic partner in adulthood
(CITATIONS). However, the developmental process of this transfer from parents to the
romantic partner as important figures has remained unknown.
In attachment research, persons to whom individuals turn their attachment behaviors are
called “attachment figures,” and there is an area of attachment research particularly focusing
on who the important attachment figure(s) is (are). Bowlby (1969/1982), as well as
Ainsworth (1982), proposed that “a child’s attachment figures could be arranged in
hierarchical order” (p. 305). Although people develop multiple attachment figures (e.g.,
mothers, fathers, romantic partners, and friends), people have more preferred attachment
figures than others, which have been termed “attachment hierarchy.” This area of research on
attachment hierarchy is recently growing, although the number of studies on attachment
hierarchy is still lower than other domains of attachment research (e.g., attachment security).
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 2
The goal of this review article is, therefore, to promote readers to deeper understand both
theoretical and empirical frameworks of attachment hierarchy development from infancy to
adulthood. First, we will describe theoretical ideas mainly developed by John Bowlby and
Mary Ainsworth. Second, we will review empirical studies on attachment hierarchy in infants
and young children, mostly using observational research. Third, empirical studies in older
children, adolescents, and adults, which mostly use self-report methods, will be reviewed,
particularly focusing on studies conducted in Czech Republic. Finally, we will discuss
important issues for future research on attachment hierarchy. We will conclude that whereas
attachment plays important roles throughout entire life, preferred attachment figures change
from infancy to adulthood. Moreover, although empirical studies use different methods
between studies for infants and young children and studies for older children and beyond
(observational and self-report methods, respectively), these studies have shown that both
children and adults activate their attachment behaviors toward their preferred attachment
figures during the same emergency situations for self and attachment figures.
This is the first to introduce the concept of attachment hierarchy in Czech psychology
research journals. In Czech Republic, attachment theory has been introduced. [We will
describe how it has been introduced. E.g., the trilogy of Bowlby’s books has been translated
in Czech. Implications of attachment theory have been summarized in Psychoterapie.] Hence,
enhancing a deeper understanding of a new concept in attachment theory and the knowledge
of its related measures will help future attachment research in Czech Republic.
The Origin of Conceptualizations for Attachment Hierarchy
Bowlby (1969/1982) described that infants and young children have a tendency (or “bias” in
his word; p. 309) to attach themselves to one principal caregiver. He called this phenomenon
“monotropy.” Bowlby elaborated this idea using evidence from observational studies of
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 3
mothers and their babies. For example, Ainsworth (1967) reported in her observation in
Uganda that although babies seemed attached to their mother, siblings, and other caregivers,
they reacted more negatively and protested harder when the primary caregiver left the room,
compared to other caregivers. Hence, although “monotropy” implies that a child is attached
to only one person, Bowlby and Ainsworth referred that “a child’s attachment-figures could
be arranged in hierarchical order” among multiple attachment figures (Bowlby, 1969/1982,
p.305).
This hierarchical idea highlights one of the most important concepts in attachment theory.
Drawing upon ethology, Bowlby proposed that attachment is an outcome of evolution. That
is, attachment to a specific figure(s) increases infants’ survival because attachment figure(s)
protect(s) infants when it comes to danger, e.g., a predator is attacking the baby. This idea is
consistent with the hierarchy concept because seeking help toward the one who is primarily
caring for the baby increases a chance of his/her survival, compared to other caregivers who
are only sporadically available. In addition, Bowlby emphasized that when babies are hungry,
tired, or ill, they prefer to turn to the primary figure for their survivals. However, babies were
less discriminative toward attachment figures when they are in a positive mood, such as when
they are playing, because these moments are not particularly related to their survivals.
Ainsworth (1989) further elaborated the development of attachment hierarchy after infancy.
Children become more tolerant toward one’s dissatisfaction from attachment needs. One
reason is that the development of cognitive perspective taking enables children to understand
other people’s motivations and agreements/disagreements from their motivations. In addition,
children become physically more capable by growing bigger and moving faster. Therefore,
the need of caregivers for survival becomes less urgent and less salient overtime. Instead, as
children develop, they become more interested in sexual reproductions. During adolescence,
for example, people start seeking a romantic partner. Ainsworth (1989), therefore, proposed
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 4
that by spending time together, the romantic partner becomes the important attachment figure.
She further elaborated that unlike parent-child relationships, romantic relationships are more
reciprocal give-and-take; partners can take turn to provide security by providing care,
comfort and reassurance. That is, whereas attachment relationships continue from infancy to
adulthood, the hierarchy of attachment figures and behavioral patterns of attachment change
over people’s development.
Empirical Studies in Infants and Young Children
Based on these theoretical underpinnings by Bowlby and Ainsworth, empirical studies have
been conducted for infants and young children. For example, Ainsworth’s findings during her
naturalistic observations in Uganda were also replicated in other naturalistic studies in other
African countries. Infants in Efé families in Congo preferred the biological mother, although
other caregivers also took care of infants in this culture (Morelli & Tronick, 1991). The
authors interpreted that this preference seemed to emerge because Efé mothers care for their
babies most often than other caregivers (e.g., comforting them at night). Infants in the
ploymatric Hausa families in Nigeria did not necessary prefer their biological mother, but the
caregiver who most frequently held or interacted with these infants (Marvin, VanDevender,
Iwanaga, LeVine & LeVine, 1977). This study is important because it shows that infants are
not biologically driven to attach to the biological mother as the most preferred attachment
figure, but attachment hierarchy develops through their interactions with multiple caregivers
after their birth.
More empirical studies on infants’ and young children’s attachment hierarchy have been
conducted in the United States. Specifically, laboratory studies consistently found infants’
preference for their mother over their father (Colin, 1985; Lamb 1976) and over their daycare
providers (Cummings, 1980; Farran & Ramey, 1977). For example, Colin (1985) developed a
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 5
laboratory assessment in which an infant is left alone or with a stranger and then the mother
and the father enters the room at the same time. This procedure increased the infant’s distress,
which enabled the researcher to observe from which parent infants seek comfort. This study,
as well as other U.S. laboratory studies, provided the evidence of babies’ preferences for the
mother, who is usually the primary caregiver in Western cultures.
However, surprisingly, during home observations, Lamb (1977a; 1977b) found infants’
preferences for the father over the mother. Subsequent studies (Belsky, 1978, Clarke-Stewart,
1979), however, demonstrated that when parents’ initiations of interactions with infants were
statistically controlled, infants’ preferences for their fathers disappeared. One reason for these
mixed findings is that fathers more often engage in physically stimulating and “rough-andtumble”
play, compared to mothers do (Clarke-Stewart, 1978; Hazen, McFarland, Jacobvitz,
& Boyd-Soisson, 2010; Paquette, 2004; Power & Parke, 1983). In addition, infants can more
confidently engage in play and other activities during home observations, compared to
laboratory observations, because it is a familiar place for them. Moreover, during home
observations, children’s preferences were observed when they are distress and when they are
not distressed, unlike Colin’s (1985) laboratory assessment in which babies were
systematically distressed by separations from parents. These differences between home and
laboratory studies are, therefore, consistent with the statement of Bowlby (1969/1982) that
babies are less discriminative when they are in a positive mood.
Interestingly, one study employing lesbian parents and their internationally adopted children
demonstrated children’s preferences for one mother (Bennett, 2003). This study consisted of
15 lesbian couples and their adopted children between 1.5 and 6 years of age living together
at least one year after their adoption. Based on interviews from both couples individually, the
study found that 12 out of the 15 couples reported their children’s preferences for one mother
over the other, although these couples reported that they engaged in the egalitarian division of
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 6
caregiving labors and shared parentings. Consistent with Bowlby’s evolutionary perspective,
these parents recalled that their children consistently asked one parent for comfort when
frightened, hurt, stressed, or sad, as well as when it was in the middle of night. Even the nonpreferred
parents noticed their child’s non-preferences for them and reported their feeling of
jealousy toward their partner. Moreover, this study found that preferred mothers spent more
time with their child and had a personality of “more nurturing,” “more patient,” and “more
maternal” (p. 168). On the other hand, the non-preferred parents had a personality of
“outgoing,” “a risk-taker,” “less cautious” and “more playful.” They also enjoyed engaging in
“rough-and-tumble” play with the child (p. 168). These findings suggest that, although
lesbian couples conduct more egalitarian and shared parenting activities; their children’s
attachment hierarchy is likely to emerge based on their time spent and their experiences of
emotional comfort with parents.
Attachment hierarchy does not, however, differ due to their relationship quality with different
caregivers. Numerous studies (see Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997, for meta-analysis) have
shown that when the caregiver sensitively notices her/his child’s emotional signals and
appropriately respond to these signals, the child is securely attached to her/his caregiver. In
contrast, when the caregiver does not provide her/his child with sensitive and responsive care,
the child is insecurely attached to the caregiver. These secure versus insecure attachment
patterns can vary from relationship to relationship; that is, some babies are securely attached
to the mother but insecurely attached to the father and vice versa. Umemura, Jacobvitz,
Messina, and Hazen (2013) have examined whether toddlers prefer the primary caregiver or
the caregiver with whom they had a secure history in infancy. The study found that regardless
of attachment security, toddlers preferred the primary caregiver when they were distressed.
However, they did not show preferences to the specific parent when they were happy. This
finding is consistent with Bowlby’s evolutionary perspective, according to which attachment
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 7
is activated when babies are in danger. Attachment security is, however, evaluated based on
children’s multiple abilities: to seek comfort from the caregiver and to use the caregiver from
which to explore the environment. That is, attachment hierarchy is particularly heightened
during children’s distressed moments, whereas attachment security is during their distressed
and confident moments.
In summary, observational research on infants and young children’s attachment hierarchy has
revealed that children prefer their primary caregiver over other caregivers. Attachment
hierarchy is particularly activated when children are distressed but not necessarily when they
are confident. This finding is consistent with Bowlby’s evolutionary perspective, according to
which attachment is an outcome of human survival.
Empirical Studies in Older Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults
While attachment hierarchy research in infants and young children has mainly used
observational methods, research in older children, adolescents, and adults has solely used
self-report methods. One reason is that, as aforementioned, when children become older, they
develop their cognitive and physical abilities and become capable of better evaluating
dangerous versus safe situations and physically protecting themselves. As such, they rarely
show their behaviors pertaining to their survival. Due to this developmental change, it is more
difficult for researchers to observe specific moments during which older children and
adolescents show strong attachment preferences (e.g., when children feel in danger of their
lives). Nonetheless, previous self-report research has revealed specific patterns of attachment
hierarchies beyond young childhood.
Compared to young children who focused solely on parents, the unique developmental
pattern of older children and adolescents is their increasing preferences for non-parental
figures. These transitions from parents to non-parental figures seem occurring in different
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 8
developmental timings depending on subcategories of their attachment. As one of the first
empirical studies on attachment hierarchy in older children and adolescents (aged from 6 to
17 years), Hazan and Zeifman (1994) developed an interview in four subcategories: proximity
seeking (e.g., “Whom do you like to be close to?”), safe haven (e.g., “Whom do you turn to
for comfort when you are upset?”), separation protest (e.g., “Whom do you not like to be
away from?”), and secure base (e.g., “Whom do you feel you can always count on?”). The
authors have demonstrated that older children, as well as adolescents, show higher
preferences to seek proximity to peers (including friends and romantic partners) than to
parents. More than half of older children (younger than 11 years of age), however, still
answered their parents as a safe haven, although more than half of adolescents (older than or
equal to 11 years) answered their peers as a safe haven. Finally, the majority of children and
adolescents (aged younger than 15 years) reported their parents as their secure base and felt
most desperate to separate parents, whereas approximately half of older adolescents (aged
older than or equal to 15 years) reported their peers for these subcategories of secure base and
separation protest. Consistent with this study, other studies have also shown that older
children and adolescents start showing their preferences for peers particularly in the proximity
seeking and safe haven subcategories, but not in the secure base subcategory (Kerns, Tomich,
& Kim, 2006; Nickerson & Nagle, 2005). Taken together, these studies demonstrated that
older children and adolescents seem to experience transitions of these attachment functions
from parents to peers.
During late adolescence and young adulthood, the preference for the romantic partner (not for
friends) particularly increases. Earlier studies (e.g., Fraley & Davis, 1997; Hazan & Zeifman,
1994; Pitman & Scharfe, 2010; Umemura, Lacinová, & Macek, 2015) used cross-sectional
data to demonstrate the increase in romantic preferences during the first a few years of
romantic relationship. For example, Hazan and Zeifman’s (1994) study found that among late
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 9
adolescents who named their peers in all the four subcategories (41% of all late adolescents),
the majority of them (83%) actually named their romantic partner. Later studies replicated
this increase in romantic preferences (Fagundes & Schindler, 2012; Umemura, Lacinová,
Macek, & Kunnen, 2016). These findings are important because it supports a hypothesis that
the primary attachment figure is transferred from parents to the romantic partner (Fraley &
Davis, 1997; Hazan & Zeifman, 1994).
Studies in Czech Republic. However, one unanswered research question still remained. If
the preference of attachment figures is hierarchical, some attachment figures are placed
higher in one’s hierarchy, and other attachment figures should be placed lower in his/her
hierarchy. A series of our studies using a Czech sample contributed to the understanding of
this research question (Umemura et al., 2015; Umemura et al., 2016; Umemura, Lacinová,
Kotrčová, & Fraley, under review). As a part of data from the project conducted by Petr
Macek and his research team to understand Czech young adults’ psychological, relationship,
and career/education paths to adulthood (see Macek et al., 2016, for details), we collected
approximately 1,000 young adults’ (aged from 18 to 29 years) data on their hierarchical
preferences once a year over three years. We translated (into Czech) a self-report
questionnaire, the WHOTO (Fraley & Davis, 1997) which was modified from the
abovementioned Hazan and Zeifman’s interview and has been used the most commonly to
assess adolescents’ and young adults’ attachment hierarchy. The WHOTO consists of three
subcategories: proximity seeking (e.g., “Who is the person you most like to spend time
with?”), safe haven (e.g., “Who is the person you want to be with when you are feeling upset
or down?”), and secure base (e.g., “Who is the person you can always count on?”). Our
studies both cross-sectionally and longitudinally found that as romantic relationship
progressed, the preference for the romantic partner increased, the preference for friends
decreased, but the preference for the mother and for the father did not change. These findings
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 10
were illustrated in Figure 1. We interpreted that by the early adulthood, the transfer of
preference from parents to peers may have already completed; therefore, changes in
attachment hierarchy was found only in peer relationships. This finding is particularly
important because it further uncovered a process of attachment transfer toward the romantic
partner.
[Figure 1 will be attached about here]
Although these above studies examined only changes when romantic relationships continue
progressing, the same patterns of changes in attachment hierarchy were also found at the start
and end of a romantic relationship. Specifically, using the same data (Macek et al., 2016), we
examined changes between two waves which are one-year apart from each other (Umemura
et al., 2016). Young adults who were not in a romantic relationship in the first wave but
started a romantic relationship before the second wave were more likely to increase their
attachment preference for the romantic partner and decrease their preference for friends.
Conversely, young adults who were in a romantic relationship in the first wave but were not
in the second wave decreased their preference for the partner and increased their preference
for friends. In both of these groups, however, attachment preferences for the mother or for the
father did not change. In sum, our studies provided cumulative evidence of interdependent
and independent patterns of changes in attachment hierarchy during early adulthood.
After our translation of the WHOTO in Czech, more studies on attachment hierarchy were
conducted in our Masaryk University students’ Bachelor and Master theses, which explored
interesting and important ideas in attachment hierarchy research. For example, two studies
focused on associations of young adults’ attachment hierarchy with characteristics of today’s
young adults. Arnett (2000) proposed that many young adults today do not consider
themselves to be adults yet but take a while to develop their feelings of adult status (he called
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 11
this developmental stage “emerging adulthood”). Employing 382 young adults (M = 22.5
years of age), Kypetová (2014) found that those who reported themselves as an adolescent
were more likely to prefer their parents as the primary caregivers, whereas those who report
themselves as adults were more likely to prefer their romantic partner as the primary
attachment figure. Another important issue for today’s young adults is over-involvement of
young adults’ parents (called “helicopter parenting”) because it prevents them to develop
autonomy from their parents (e.g., Schiffrin et al., 2014). Corresponding to this idea, using
604 young adults (M = 22.4 years of age), Pichová (2015) found that those who reported a
high score of their mother’s helicopter parenting had a high attachment preference for the
mother, and similarly those with a high score for their father’s helicopter parenting had a high
preference for the father. These two studies highlight that attachment hierarchy differs with
respect to characteristics of today’s young adulthood.
Other students’ theses focused on special populations, which are particularly important
because, by our knowledge, none of the studies published in empirical journals have
examined attachment hierarchy in special populations. For example two studies examined
adults who had a life-threatening job, such as soldiers and firefighters. Specifically, Cvrčková
(2015) employed a sample of 71 Czech members (M = 33.25 years of age) of combat units
and found that colleagues from deployment are placed as their important attachment figures
[More specific results needed]. Cvrčková interpreted that [DETAILS]. This study is currently
under review in a scientific journal. Similar findings emerged in a study of 153 firefighters
(M = 36.00 years of age; Rozehnalová, 2014). Firefighters also tended to place their
colleagues in their attachment hierarchy, especially in the domains of [SUBCATEGORIES].
Rozehnalová interpreted that [DETAILS].
Two studies examined more elderly adults whose romantic partners are not available as an
attachment figure. These adults seem to seek themselves for their attachment needs.
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 12
Specifically, employing 84 elderly adults (M = 69.75 years of age), Jurkasová (2015) found
that they prefer to seek themselves as a safe haven but prefer their children in the domains of
proximity seeking, secure base and separation distress. According to Jurkasová, the
availability of partner and the age of children play important roles in their hierarchy.
Specifically, [Details of interpretations.] Kalina (2015) collected 62 adults (M = 51.81) whose
spouses suffer long-term ill to examine their spouse’s position in their attachment hierarchy.
Consistent with the above results of eldery adults, participants named themselves when they
were asked for their safe haven. He interpreted this result as [Details of interpretations].
These findings in older adults are unique because younger adults mostly name other people
but rarely themselves as a safe haven.
Finally, one study has been conducted in a clinical population. Vejrych (2015) recruited 61
drug users who were currently under treatment in a psychiatric clinic (M = 25.9 years of age)
and 61 non-drug users (M = 23.1 years of age). Drug treatment clients were more likely to
seek proximity to their mother and less likely to use romantic partners and friends as a secure
base, compared to non-drug users. The author concluded that young adults who are under a
psychiatric treatment may have a slower rate of transfer of their primary attachment figure
from their parents to peers because [interpretations]. By our knowledge, none of the studies
published in scientific journals have examined attachment hierarchy in clinical population.
Taken together, all these studies show a great potential that Czech psychological research will
contribute to the literature of attachment hierarchy. Although these studies conducted by
students are all interesting and important, a limitation of these studies is small sample sizes.
By enlarging sample sizes, results of these studies will be more promising.
In summary, previous studies have found that older children start preferring peers, and late
adolescents and young adults start preferring particularly their romantic partner (e.g., Hazan
& Zeifman, 1994). Our Czech studies further revealed that, in young adulthood, attachment
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 13
preferences for parents seem no longer changes, but preferences for friends decrease as
preferences for romantic partner increases (e.g., Umemura et al., 2015). These finding
suggest that by young adulthood, the transfer from parents to peers seem to have already
completed. Other Czech studies conducted by students have demonstrated variations of
attachment preferences in different life contexts, such as older generations and clinical
populations, suggesting that different populations may have different patterns of attachment
hierarchy development.
Important Issues for Future Research
Subcategories of attachment hierarchy. Although multiple studies have cumulatively
demonstrated the consistent evidence of attachment hierarchy development, several important
issues remain unclear, which should be solved in future research. For example, what should
be measured as attachment behaviors have been an important question not only in attachment
hierarchy research but also in other attachment research. For example, the same behaviors
(e.g., seeking proximity) can be considered a part of attachment in some situations and other
behavior systems in different situations, such as affiliation (see Sroufe & Waters, 1977).
Bowlby (1969/1982) and Ainsworth (1982) emphasized that attachment is particularly
activated when people feel tired, ill, or separated from the attachment figures. Consistent with
this idea, previous observational research in infants and young children demonstrated the
preference for their mother (or the primary caregiver) when they are distressed, but not when
they are happy (e.g., Umemura et al., 2013). Moreover, laboratory observations (Colin, 1985),
which involve separations between parents and their child to increase the child’s distress,
detected higher levels of attachment preferences, compared to naturalistic home observations,
which do not involve separations (e.g., Belsky, 1978; Clarke-Stewart, 1979). Hence,
observing behaviors during the activation of attachment maximizes the detection of
attachment hierarchy in infants and young children.
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 14
Although research in infants and young children has mainly been conducted as observational
research, and research after young childhood has relied on self-report methods, this activation
of attachment seems continuously important after young childhood. For example, Rosenthal
and Kobak (2010) developed a self-report scale of attachment hierarchy for adolescents and
young adults (named “Important People Interview” or IPI), consisting of three subcategories:
attachment bond (“closeness, separation distress, and emergency situation”), support seeking
(“comfort or support in daily contexts”), and affiliative proximity seeking (“enjoyable social
contact”). Rosenthal and Kobak interpreted that the attachment bond subcategory involves in
emergency situations such as danger to self and threat to the availability of the attachment
figure (e.g., when waking up at a hospital emergency room and when flying away by oneself),
which leads to high levels of attachment activations. However, the support seeking
subcategory was constructed as non-emergent and therefore less-intense attachment situations
(e.g., when having a bad day and when experiencing a social rejection). Finally, the affiliative
proximity seeking subcategory involves ideas of whom people prefer to spend time with when
having fun or when having a free time and, therefore, does not include any intensity of
attachment behaviors. Rosenthal and Kobak’s (2010) factor analyses revealed that
adolescents and young adults differently responded among these three subcategories.
In summary, the activation of attachment (or the high intensity of attachment) seems
continuously playing important roles in attachment hierarchy from infancy to adulthood.
However, the majority of research on attachment hierarchy has not had paid close attention to
its subcategories. To examine continuity and changes in attachment hierarchy from infancy to
adulthood, future research needs to distinguish subcategories consistently across development.
Roles of friends in attachment hierarchy. Caregivers (usually parents) are the primary
caregivers in attachment hierarchy in infancy and young childhood, and romantic partners are
the most preferred attachment figure in late adolescence and adulthood. However, roles of
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 15
friends are less certain in attachment hierarchy research; that is, it is unclear how friends play
a role in its transition from parents to the romantic partner. Our Czech studies have
demonstrated that in young adulthood, as the preference for the romantic partner increases,
the preference for friends decreases whereas the preference for parents do not change (e.g.,
Umemura et al., under review). We interpret that young adults have already completed their
transfer from parents to peers. Consistent with this finding, some leading researchers in
adolescent relationship research believe that friends mediate attachment from parents to the
romantic partner because friendships allow young people to learn give-and-take reciprocal
patterns of relationships and romantic relationships are also reciprocal (parent-child
relationships are not or at least less). For example, Collins and van Dulmen (2006) stated that
“romantic relationships begin as an informal extension of friendship groups” (p. 221).
Empirically, Furman, Simon, Shaffer, and Bouchey (2002) revealed that during adolescence,
the association between attachment security with friends and with romantic partners is more
consistent, compared to the one between romantic partners and parents. Moreover, they found
that after controlling for attachment security with friends, the association between attachment
security with parents and with the romantic partner was no longer significant. These findings
suggest that friends may be a mediator of the transition from parents to romantic partners in
the course of attachment development to adulthood.
However, when more closely looking at subcategories of attachment hierarchy, Hazan and
Zeifman (1996) reported that it was very unlikely that older children, adolescents, and adults
to nominate friends (but only parents and romantic partners) in all the four subcategories of
their scale: proximity seeking, safe haven, separation protest, and secure base. Friends were
nominated frequently in proximity seeking and safe haven, whereas parents or romantic
partners are more frequently nominated in the separation protest and secure base
subcategories. As Rosenthal and Kobak (2010) mentioned some subcategories are more
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 16
important in attachment hierarchy, Hazan and Ziefman interpreted that people choose their
friends whom they engage in proximity seeking and safe haven due to their convenience.
However, because secure-base and separation protest are more considered “the true makers
of attachment” (p. 160), friends may not be nominated in their top of hierarchy in these more
core aspects of attachment situations. Since only a limited number of studies focus on
subcategories, more studies are needed to understand roles of friends in attachment hierarchy.
Outcomes of attachment hierarchy. All the aforementioned information is about the
normative patterns of attachment hierarchy development, and effects of the deviation from its
normative pattern are unclear. For example, children who spend extremely long hours in
daycare may not develop clear preferences for their parents or may take longer time to
develop. These children may develop their preference for a daycare provider, but when this
preferred daycare provider is changed to someone else (e.g., due to the daycare provider’s
turnover or children’s completion of daycare), their transfer from the one to another one may
influence children’s emotional development. For example, one study found that infants who
experience more than 60 hours of nonmaternal care in a week are more likely to develop the
disorganized pattern of attachment with their mother, compared to infants who do not (Hazen,
Allen, Christopher, Umemura, & Jacobvitz, 2015). One characteristic of disorganized
attachment is that infants show unexplainable behaviors in front of their mother (Main &
Solomon, 1990). These children who experience extremely long hours without their mother
may not know how to direct their attachment behaviors toward their mother.
Regarding deviations in adolescence and adulthood, by our knowledge, only one study has
found associations of adolescents’ and young adults’ low preference for fathers and high
preference for friends with both internalizing and externalizing behavior problems (Rosenthal
& Kobak, 2010). Rosenthal and Kobak explained that adolescents’ high reliance on peers and
low reliance on parents are at risk for their development of problem behaviors because these
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 17
hierarchical characteristics indicate adolescents’ premature autonomy. More studies are
needed to explore roles of deviations from normative patterns of attachment hierarchy in
negative psychological functioning, such as poor mental health and psychopathological
symptoms.
Conclusions
Attachment relationships begin with caregivers (usually parents) in infancy. Later,
adolescents and young adults start reporting their romantic partner as their most important
attachment figure. In this study, we summarized theoretical explanations on attachment
hierarchy. Drawing upon the evolutionary perspective, during emergency situations for self
and attachment figures, people activate their behaviors to seek closeness and emotional
support toward their attachment figures who are the caregivers in infancy and young
childhood and the romantic partner in older childhood and beyond. Although empirical
studies use different methods between studies for infants and young children and studies for
older children and beyond (observational and self-report methods, respectively), this
theoretical idea has been supported consistently from infancy to adulthood. In addition, we
highlighted that attachment hierarchy is a timely research topic in attachment research, and
Czech studies have been contributing to the research field. Specifically, we demonstrated that
young adults’ romantic preferences were interdependent with their friend preferences but not
with their parental preferences. Czech students’ theses demonstrated unique attachment
hierarchies in special populations, employing samples of participants with life-threatening
jobs, adults with unavailable partners, and young adults with drug problems. Finally, we
focused on future research directions. There are only a limited number of studies exploring
subcategories of attachment hierarchy, roles of friends during the transition from childhood to
adulthood, and outcomes of deviation from normative patterns of attachment hierarchy
development.
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 18
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1967). Infancy in Uganda: Infant care and the growth of love.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1982). Attachment: Retrospect and prospect. In J. Stevenson-Hinde, &
C. M. Parks (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior. New York: Basic
Books.
Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1989). Attachment bonds beyond infancy. American Psychologist,44,
709–716.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. American psychologist, 55, 469-480.
Belsky, J. (1979). Mother-father-infant interaction: A naturalistic observational study.
Developmental Psychology, 15, 601-607.
Bennett, S. (2003). Is there a primary mom? Parental perceptions of attachment bond
hierarchies within lesbian adoptive families. Child and Adolescent Social Work
Journal, 20, 159-173.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and Loss: Vol.1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic
Books. (Original work published 1969)
Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1978). And daddy makes three: The father’s impact on mother and
young child. Child Development, 49, 466-478.
Colin, V. (1985). Hierarchies and patterns of infants’ attachments to parents and day
caregivers: An exploration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Charlottesville:
University of Virginia.
Cummings, E. M. (1980). Caregiver stability and attachment in infant day care.
Developmental Psychology, 16, 31-37.
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 19
Cvrčková, A. (2015). Citová vazba, hierarchie citové vazby, sociální opora po návratu z mise
a somatizační tendence českých kombatantů, kteří se zúčastnili zahraniční vojenské
mise.
Farran, D. C., & Ramey, C. T. (1977). Infant day care and attachment behavior towards
mothers and teachers. Child Development, 48, 112–116.
Feeney, J. A. (2004). Transfer of attachment from parents to romantic partners: Effects of
individual and relationship variables. Journal of Family Studies, 10, 220-238.
Fraley, R. C., & Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young adults’
close friendships and romantic relationships. Personal relationships, 4, 131-144.
Fagundes, C. P., & Schindler, I. (2012). Making of romantic attachment bonds: Longitudinal
trajectories and implications for relationship stability. Personal Relationships, 19,
723-742.
Furman, W., Simon, V. A., Shaffer, L., & Bouchey, H. A. (2002). Adolescents'
representations of relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Child
Development, 73, 241-255.
Freeman, H., & Brown, B. B. (2001). Primary attachment to parents and peers during
adolescence: Differences by attachment style. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30,
653-674.
Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994).Sex and the psychological tether. In K. Bartholomew & D.
Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5. Attachment processesin
adulthood (pp. 151–178). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Hazen, N. L., Allen, S. D., Christopher, C. H., Umemura, T., & Jacobvitz, D. B. (2015). Very
extensive nonmaternal care predicts mother–infant attachment disorganization:
Convergent evidence from two samples. Development and Psychopathology, 27, 649-
661.
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 20
Hazen, N. L., McFarland, L., Jacobvitz, D., & Boyd-Soisson, E. (2010). Fathers’ frightening
behaviours and sensitivity with infants: Relations with fathers’ attachment
representations, father–infant attachment, and children’s later outcomes. Early Child
Development and Care, 180, 51–69.
Jurkasová, M. (2015). Hierarchie citové vazby a osamělost u aktivních seniorů.
Kalina, T. (2015). Hierarchie citové vazby, partnerská spokojenost a styly řešení konfliktů u
osob pečujících o dlouhodobě nemocné partnery.
Keren, E., & Mayseless, O. (2013).The freedom to choose secure attachment relationships in
adulthood. The Journal of genetic psychology, 174, 271-290.
Kerns, K. A., Tomich, P. L., & Kim, P. (2006). Normative trends in children’s perceptions of
availability and utilization of attachment figures in middle childhood. Social
Development, 15, 1–22.
Kobak, R., Rosenthal, N. L., Zajac, K., & Madsen, S. D. (2007).Adolescent attachment
hierarchies and the search for an adult pair‐bond. New Directions for Child and
Adolescent Development, 2007, 57-72.
Kypetová, O. (2014). Hierarchie citové vazby v období vynořující se dospělosti: rodiče,
partneři a přátelé.
Lamb, M. E. (1976). Effects of stress and cohort on mother– and father–infant interaction.
Developmental Psychology, 12, 435–443.
Lamb, M. E. (1977a). The development of infant-mother and father-infant attachments in the
second year of life. Developmental Psychology, 13, 537-578.
Lamb, M. E. (1977b). Father-infant and mother-infant interaction in the first year of
life.Child Development, 78, 157-181.
Macek, P., Ježek, S., Lacinová, L., Bouša, O., Kvitkoviřčová, L., Michalčáová, R. N., &
Širůček, J. (2016). Emerging adults in the Czech Republic: Views into and across
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 21
different domains of life. In R. Žukauskiené (Ed.), Emerging Adulthood in a
European Context (pp.175-202). London and New York: Routledge.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as
disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T. Greenberg,
D. Cicchetti, & E. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory,
research, and intervention (pp. 121–160). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marvin, R. S., Vandevender, T. L., Iwanaga, M. I., LeVine, S., & Levine, R. A. (1977).
Infant–caregiver attachment among the Hausa of Nigeria. In H. M. McGurk (Ed.),
Ecological factors in human development (pp. 247–260). Amsterdam: North Holland
Publishing.
Morelli, G. A., & Tronick, E. Z. (1991). Efe multiple caretaking and attachment. In J. L.
Gewirtz, & W. M. Kurtines (Eds.), Intersections with attachment (pp. 41–51).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mayseless, O. (2004). Home-leaving to military service: Attachment concerns, transfer of
attachment functions from parents to peers, and adjustment. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 19, 533-558.
Nickerson, A. B., & Nagle, R. J. (2005). Parent and peer attachment in late childhood and
early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 223–249.
Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father–child relationship: Mechanisms and
developmental outcomes. Human Development, 47, 193–219.
Pichová. P. (2015). Prediktory hierarchie citové vazby v období vynořující se dospělosti.
Pitman, R., & Scharfe, E. (2010). Testing the function of attachment hierarchies during
emerging adulthood. Personal Relationships, 17, 201-216.
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 22
Rosenthal, N. L., & Kobak, R. (2010).Assessing adolescents' attachment hierarchies:
Differences across developmental periods and associations with individual
adaptation. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 678-706.
Power, T. G., & Parke, R. D. (1983). Patterns of mother and father play with their 8-monthold
infant: A multiple analyses approach. Infant Behavior and Development, 6, 453–
459.
Rozehnalová, L. (2014). Prediktory profesní spokojenosti a hierarchie citové vazby u
profesionálních hasičů.
Scharf, M., & Mayseless, O. (2007). Putting eggs in more than one basket: A new look at
developmental processes of attachment in adolescence. New directions for child and
adolescent development, 117, 1-22.
Schiffrin, H. H., Liss, M., Miles-McLean, H., Geary, K. A., Erchull, M. J., & Tashner, T.
(2014). Helping or hovering? The effects of helicopter parenting on college students’
well-being. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 548-557.
Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child
Development, 48, 1184-1199.
Trinke, S. J., & Bartholomew, K. (1997).Hierarchies of attachment relationships in young
adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 603-625.
Umemura, T., Jacobvitz, D., Messina, S., & Hazen, N. (2013). Do toddlers prefer the primary
caregiver or the parent with whom they feel more secure? The role of toddler
emotion. Infant Behavior and Development, 36, 102-114.
Umemura, T., Lacinová, L., & Macek, P. (2015). Is emerging adults’ attachment preference
for the romantic partner shifted from their attachment preferences for their mother,
father, and friends? Emerging Adulthood, 3, 179-193.
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 23
Umemura, T., Lacinová, L., Kotrčová, K., & Fraley, C. R. (under review). Changes in
attachment hierarchy, attachment avoidance, and attachment anxiety: As a function of
romantic relationship length.
Umemura, T., Lacinová, L., Macek, P., & Kunnen, S. E. (2016). Longitudinal changes in
emerging adults’ attachment preferences for their mother, father, friends, and
romantic partner: Focusing on start and end of romantic relationships. International
Journal of Behavioral Development. Advance Online Publication. doi:
10.1177/0165025416647545
Vejrych, T. (2015). Hierarchie citové vazby u užvatelů návykových látek.
Waters, E., & Cummings, E. M. (2000). A secure base from which to explore close
relationships. Child Development, 71, 164-172.
Wolff, M. S., & Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta‐analysis on
parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 571-591.
Abstract
[300 words]
Keywords
Attachment hierarchy; attachment theory; parent-child relationship; romantic relationship;
peer relationship.
REVIEW ON ATTACHMENT HIERARCHY 24
Figure 1. A conceptual model of adult hierarchical preferences for attachment figures in
relation to the length of romantic relationship. (This figure was originally published in
English in Umemura, Lacinová, Kotrčová, & Fraley, under review.)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Beginning Later
TheDegreeofAttachmentPreference
The Length of Romantic Relationship
Preference for Friends
Preference for Parents
Preference for the Romantic Partner