Tomo Umemura
Institute of
Research on
Child Youth and
Family
Masaryk
University
October 2016
Attachment hierarchy:
Developmental approaches
The picture was taken from: http://www.mdvv-lidice.cz/en/current/exhibits/asia/17/
Definition of attachment
 “A strong disposition to seek proximity to and contact with a
specific figure and to do so in certain situations, notably when
frightened, tired, or ill” (Bowlby, 1969/1982, p. 371)
 Premise 1: Attachment behaviors are different from affiliative
behaviors or other social engagements.
 Evolutionary biology perspective
 Premise 2: Tendency to turn selectively to specific figures.
 Attachment hierarchy
 Evolutionary biology perspective
Several developmental changes occur
as children grow up
 As growing up, children become more capable of
protecting themselves and more
autonomous/independent from their parents.
 Important research question: Do adults prefer specific
attachment figure due to their survival?
 When waking up at emergency room?
 When having a bad day?
 Current Research:
 Over the course of development, new figures enter the
dynamics of attachment: in particular, friends and later
romantic partners.
 The attachment hierarchy transfers from parents to romantic
partner.
 Young children prefer parents (Colin, 1980; Lamb, 1977a; 1977b; Umemura,
Jacobvitz, Messina, & Hazen, 2013).
 Older children start choosing friends as important figures (Fraley &
Davis, 1997; Kerns, Tomich, & Kim, 2006; Nickerson & Nagle, 2005).
 Adolescents and emerging adults prefer their romantic partner
(Fraley & Davis, 1997; Umemura, Lacinová, & Macek, 2015).
 Example of the development of one person:
Empirical findings on attachment preferences
from childhood to adulthood.
 Two research questions:
 Do young children prefer the primary caregiver or the better
caregiver?
 As emerging adults start preparing the romantic partner, do they
show low preference for parents and friends or only one of them?
Empirical studies on attachment hierarchy
 Two competing hypotheses from attachment theory
 To enhance the chance of survival, a child prefers the primary caregiver over
other caregivers when distressed (Bowlby, 1969/1982).
 A caregiver’s ability to comfort the child is related to the child’s secure
attachment in later life (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 1978).
 The primary caregiver vs. the better caregiver?
 Results:
 When distressed,
 toddlers prefer their primary caregiver.
 toddlers also prefer their mother.
 toddlers did not show any preference for better or worse caregiver.
 When happy,
 toddlers did not show any preference for parents.
Attachment preferences during toddlerhood
(Umemura, Jacobvitz, Messina, & Hazen, 2013)
 15 lesbian couples and their internationally adopted children
 Lesbian couples reported child’s preferences for one mother, although
reporting egalitarian division of caregiving labors and shared parentings.
 Parents recalled particularly the moments: when frightened, hurt,
stressed, or sad, as well as in the middle of night.
 Consistent with evolutionary perspective
 Non-preferred parents reported gearously toward the preferred mom.
 Preferred mothers had a personality of “more nurturing,” “more
patient,” and “more maternal.”
 Non-preferred parents had a personality of “outgoing,” “a risk-taker,” “less
cautious,” “more playful,” and “rough-and-tumble” play with the child.
 These findings suggest non-biological origin of attachment hierarchy.
 Jiří Ammer: Master thesis title “Qualitative analysis on children’s
attachment relationships in same-sex parents”
 Lesbian parents and their children biologically related to only one parent.
Attachment hierarchy in lesbian families
(Bennett, 2003)
 Two research questions:
 Do young children prefer the primary caregiver or the better caregiver?
 As emerging adults start preparing the romantic partner, do they show
low preference for parents and friends or for only one of them?
Empirical studies on attachment hierarchy
 Previous studies found that, on average, the transfer of
attachment preferences from parents to the romantic
partner takes approximately two years (Fraley & Davis, 1997; Hazan
& Zeifman, 1994; also see Kobak, Rosenthal, Zajac, & Madsen, 2007 for review).
Attachment preferences in emerging adults
(Umemura, Lacinová, & Macek, 2015)
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 year 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years
AttachmentPreference
The Length of Romantic Relationship
Preference for the Romantic Partner
 However, previous studies:
 only examined an increase in emerging adults’ preference for
the partner
 did not examine whether their preferences for parents or
friends decrease.
Preference for the romantic partner is related to
the length of romantic relationship
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 year 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years
AttachmentPreference
The Length of Romantic Relationship
Preference for the Romantic Partner
Preference for the Other Figures (friends and parents)
 As emerging adults start preparing the romantic partner, do they show
low preference for parents and friends or for only one of them?
Research Question
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 year 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years
AttachmentPreference
The Length of Romantic Relationship
Preference for the Romantic Partner
Preference for the Other Figures (friends and parents)
 Participants
Part of our Paths-to-Adulthood (Cesty do Dospělosti)
project (N = 1143), conducted in the Czech Republic
Sample characteristics:
75% females
16% graduate school; 57% college; 4% community
college; 10% grammar school; 8% specialized secondary
school; 10% work (6% study&work); 3% unemployed
Age: 21.46 years (SD = 1.55)
Minimum = 18 years; Maximum = 29 years
Method
Results
***
***
n. s.
n. s.
 Emerging adults experience the transition of relationship preferences
from friends to their partner (not for parents).
 The partner is replacement of friends, but not replacement of parents.
 During adolescence, young people may have already completed their
transition from parents to friends.
 During emerging adulthood, they transfer their preferences from
friends to the partner.
 Všichni moji blízcí project:
 Development of attachment hierarchy from early (11 years of age) to
late (18 years of age) adolescence.
 Supported by Czech Science Foundation (Grantovou agenturou České
republiky): GA16-03059S
 http://vsichnimojiblizci.fss.muni.cz/
Conclusions
Všichni moji blízcí project
Všichni moji blízcí project
Všichni moji blízcí project
Všichni moji blízcí project
Všichni moji blízcí project
Všichni moji blízcí project
Všichni moji blízcí project
 Students have focused on special populations:
 Adults who have life-threatening jobs: fire-fighters and soldiers
 Older adults: elderly adults and adults whose partners have long-term
illness
 Clinical populations: drug users
 Non-traditional families: children with lesbian parents
 Research on special populations is particularly important because,
by our knowledge, only a few studies have examined attachment
hierarchy in special populations.
Contributions of MU students’ theses
to attachment hierarchy research
 Adults who had a life-threatening job:
 Soldiers: Cvrčková (2015)
 A sample of 71 Czech members (M = 33.25 years of age) of
combat units
 Results: Colleagues from deployment are placed as their important
attachment figures.
 This study is currently under review in a scientific journal.
 Firefighters: Rozehnalová (2014)
 A sample of 153 firefighters (M = 36.00 years of age;)
 Results: Firefighters also tended to place their colleagues in their
attachment hierarchy.
Attachment hierarchy
in special groups of people
 Older adults
 Jurkasová (2015):
 84 elderly adults (M = 69.75 years of age)
 Results: elderly prefer to seek themselves for comfort.
 The availability of partner and the age of children play important
roles in their hierarchy.
 Kalina (2015):
 62 adults (M = 51.81) whose spouses suffer long-term ill.
 Results: participants named themselves when they were asked for
their source of comfort.
 These findings in older adults are unique because younger adults
mostly name other people but rarely themselves.
Attachment hierarchy
in special groups of people
 Clinical population: Vejrych (2015)
 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 their mother and less
likely to use romantic partners and friends, compared to non-drug
users.
 A limitation of these student studies is small sample sizes. By
enlarging sample sizes, results of these studies will be more
promising.
 Taken together, all these studies show a great potential that your
research will contribute to the literature of attachment hierarchy.
Attachment hierarchy
in special groups of people
Review articles on attachment hierarchy:
 Umemura, T. Lacinová, L, Horská, E., & Pivodová, L. (in
preparation) Development of multiple attachment relationships
from infancy to adulthood: A theoretical and empirical review of
attachment hierarchy.
 Fraley, R. C. (2016). What is an attachment relationship? In O.
Gillath, G. C. Karantzas, R. C. Fraley (Eds.), Adult attachment: A
concise introduction to theory and research (1st ed.) New York, NY
US: Academic Press.
 Kobak, R., Rosenthal, N. L., Zajac, K., & Madsen, S. (2007).
Adolescent attachment hierarchies and the search for an adult pair
bond. In M. Scharf & O. Mayseless (Eds.), New directions in child
development: Adolescent attachment. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
References for attachment hierarchy
research
MU students’ theses on attachment hierarchy:
 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.
 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.
 Kypetová, O. (2014). Hierarchie citové vazby v období vynořující se
dospělosti: rodiče, partneři a přátelé.
 Pichová. P. (2015). Prediktory hierarchie citové vazby v období vynořující se
dospělosti.
 Rozehnalová, L. (2014). Prediktory profesní spokojenosti a hierarchie citové
vazby u profesionálních hasičů.
 Vejrych, T. (2015). Hierarchie citové vazby u užvatelů návykových látek.
References for attachment hierarchy
research