The relationship between attachment style and placement of parents in adults’ attachment networks over time

ABSTRACT

Using a bull’s-eye hierarchical mapping technique (HMT), the present study examined placement of parents in adults’ attachment networks over time. We hypothesized that attachment style would predict distance at which network members (mother, father, and romantic partner) would be placed from the core-self over time. Participants completed the HMT on two occasions, 12 months apart. Concurrently and over time, fathers were placed further from the core-self than mothers. Attachment style explained unique variance, beyond that accounted for by individual and relationship characteristics. Specifically, network members with whom participants reported greater attachment insecurity were placed further from the core-self concurrently. Mothers with whom participants reported greater attachment insecurity were placed further from the core-self over time. Unsatisfactory attachment relationships with father and partner and those marked by higher attachment insecurity were more likely to be excluded from attachment networks over time. Findings suggest that attachment style, relationship quality, romantic relationship status, and parents’ marital status determine the placement of parents in adults’ attachment networks.

KEYWORDS:

• Attachment
• attachment networks
• parents
• attachment style
• longitudinal

Acknowledgments

We thank our dedicated undergraduate and postgraduate students (Adam Pegler and Angeliki Theodoridou) who helped with data collection, preparation, and coding. We would also like to thank the members of UKAN (United Kingdom Attachment Network) for rich discussions of attachment networks; they contributed greatly to this research project: Elle Boag, Erica Hepper, Michelle Luke, Abigail Millings, Christine Mohr, Harriet Stott, Angeliki Theodoridou, and Judi Walsh. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable feedback on our work.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. The additional relationship characteristics were derived from the extant literature and through extensive discussion with members of the United Kingdom Attachment Network, a group of internationally recognized experts in adult attachment theory, which took place in 2011–2012.

2. We included additional measures to address other hypotheses about change in attachment networks over time: at Wave 1, the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies - Depression scale (CES-D) short form (Cole, Rabin, Smith, & Kaufman, 2004), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1983), Ten-Item Personality Inventory (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003), and a measure of significant others’ psychological well-being, and at Wave 2, the ECR-short form (Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007), psychological well-being measures, the Attachment Network Questionnaire (ANQ) (Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997), and the Wave 1 relationship characteristics measures for any new people on the Wave 2 list.

3. Outliers were winsorized (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013) and missing values replaced with the mean. There was less than 5% missing for all variables except frequency of conflict with mother (8.25%) and father (8.12%). Missing conflict with mother scores were predicted from participants’ age (Little’s Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) test, χ²(107) = 38, p = .024). Participants that completed the measure were older (M = 20.1) than those who did not (M = 19.1 years), t(51) = 4.2, p < .001. Missing conflict with father scores were missing at random (Little’s MCAR, χ²(122) = 110, p = .77). Participants that completed the measure were older (M = 20.2) than those who did not (M = 19.0), t(45) = 4.40, p < .001.

4. Findings were the same when based on non-mean-replaced data, with the following exceptions. For mother’s distance (n = 308) at Step 1, gender was not a significant predictor (β = .102, p = .073), but context was (β = .124, p = .032); at Step 2, relationship satisfaction was not significant (β = –.118, p = .065); and at Step 3, attachment anxiety was not significant (β = .073, p = .142). For father’s distance (n = 261), father-initiated non-need-based contact was a significant predictor (β = .15, p = .046) at Step 2. For partner’s distance (n = 189), the results were the same as those for the mean-replaced data.

5. Mother’s distance differed by university, F(2,345) = 4.06, p = .018. Participants from University A placed mother closer (M = 23.7) to the core-self than did those from University B (M = 29.8), p = .08 and University C (M = 28.1), p = .06.