Glen Palm

St. Cloud State University

Attachment Theory and Fathers: Moving

From Being There to Being With

Attachment theory has played an important role

as a framework for exploring and explaining
parentchild relationships and the impact of
early relationships on child and adult development. This review focuses on our evolving
understanding of attachment theory related to
fatherchild relationships during the early childhood years. The history of research questions
about fathers and the attachment process are
reviewed with attention to the changing social
context. A family model of attachment research
as it relates to fathers is presented. The article reviews the practice literature and the application to parent and family education. A final
section addresses future directions for research
and practice and the integrations of family systems, neuroscience, and ecological theory with
attachment theory.
The primary purpose of this article is to review
attachment theory research and practice related
to fathers and to assess what this theory has contributed to our understanding of and work with
fathers and fatherchild relationships in family
contexts. The scholarship focusing on fathers
and their role in child development began to
attract more attention in the 1970s (e.g., Lamb,
1976a) and has continued to grow over the past

Department of Child and Family Studies, St. Cloud State

University, 720 Fourth Ave. S., St. Cloud, MN 56303
(gfpalm@stcloudstate.edu).
Key Words: Attachment theory, father, fatherchild attachment, parent education.

282

40 years. Attachment theory has a long history (Ainsworth, 1967; Bowlby, 1969) that has
carefully examined and described the evolving parentchild relationships in early childhood
with a focus on mother as the primary attachment figure. Research into the fathers role as
attachment figures also began in the 1970s and
has gone through distinct stages of development (Bretherton, 2011). This review focuses
on the accumulation of knowledge and insights
about fathers and attachment from both research
and practice literature. Mikulincer and Shaver
(2012), in their recent review of attachment theory and the interface with family theory and
research, open the door for family researchers
and practitioners to further explore the dyadic
concepts from attachment theory as a way to
enrich our understanding of family relationships. This review can be seen as an extension
of the marriage of attachment theory and family research to focus specifically on fathers as
important attachment figures within diverse family systems.
The review of literature has incorporated
a variety of previous reviews of attachment
research on fathers (Bretherton, 2011; Hoffman,
2011; Lamb & Lewis, 2010), meta-analyses
(Fox, Kimmerly, & Schafer, 1991; Lucassen
et al., 2011; Van IJzendoorn & DeWolff, 1997),
longitudinal work on attachment (e.g., Grossmann, Grossmann, & Waters, 2005; Sroufe,
Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005). In addition, I completed a search of the databases
in Academic Search Premier using the terms
father and attachment for the years 20002014.
A recent book on the scholarship of fathers and

Journal of Family Theory & Review 6 (December 2014): 282297

DOI:10.1111/jftr.12045

Attachment Theory and Fathers

attachment (Newland, Freeman, & Coyl, 2011)
was also a valuable source of recent research on
the topic. Clinical infant mental health literature
related to fathers and attachment (e.g. Powell,
Cooper, Hoffman, & Marvin, 2007) was also
useful for understanding how attachment theory
might be used in parent education practice with
fathers. Attachment theory, which grew from
Bowlbys (1969) integration of multiple disciplines, continues to rely on multiple perspectives
and remains a source of vitality by stimulating new inquiries into fatherchild attachment
dynamics.
This review of attachment theory and research
explores the current understanding from both
research and practice literature related to fathers
and families. It focuses on the development of
the fatherchild relationship during early childhood. The review begins with a brief introduction to the basic theoretical concepts of attachment theory. A historical overview of the application of this theory to fatherchild relationships
examines the important research questions that
have emerged over the past 40 years (Bretherton, 2011). The results begin to illuminate the
unique dynamics of the fatherchild attachment
relationship and a growing awareness of the need
to interpret results within diverse and changing
family and social contexts (Feldman, 2012a).
Attachment theory has influenced many different areas of practice from clinical work in
infant mental health to parent education and
family policy. This review primarily addresses
the implications for parent and family education practice with fathers during infancy and
early childhood. A detailed review of the influence of attachment theory on policy and clinical practice related to fathers is beyond the
scope of this review. I also discuss how attachment theory has influenced my own work as
a fatherhood practitioner and scholar. The final
section of the review outlines future opportunities for revising and expanding attachment theory using neuroscience research to enrich our
understanding of fatherchild relationships and
to explore potential applications of this work for
practice with fathers and families with young
children.
Important Attachment Constructs
The story of attachment theory begins with John
Bowlby (1982), who describes attachment as
an intense and enduring emotional bond that is

283
rooted in the function of protection of infants
from danger. Mothers were the primary focus
for this developing relationship. Attachment is
about our first relationships that are dynamic yet
have enduring characteristics that profoundly
influence later development. The dynamic and
complex nature of parentchild relationships
makes it difficult to capture and measure this
evolving relationship in a precise manner.
Bowlby, in the development of attachment
theory, brings together different perspectives
from psychoanalytic theory, learning theory, and
cognitive psychology with an ethological perspective to describe and explain the developing
bond between mother and infant (Karen, 1998).
Attachment theory stems from ethology and the
notion that an infant is biologically wired or
programmed to seek proximity with caregivers
to get their needs met. The biological function
of attachment behaviors is to ensure survival.
From an evolutionary, ethological perspective
the infant is equipped with signaling capabilities
to gain parent attention as a means to getting
their needs met and ensuring survival. The
infant communicates distress through crying;
seeks proximity for security; and initiates social
engagement through smiling, cooing, and gazing. The parent also is equipped with instinctual
resources to attend to and respond to child cues
indicating a need for care. Bowlby describes how
the attachment relationship provides a secure
base for the child to explore and a safe haven to
return to in times of distress. Reciprocity of the
motherinfant relationship was a key factor in
Bowlbys description of attachment. For infants
the goal of their attachment behaviors was to
reduce stress and create a sense of security
through contact with their caregiver (mother).
For the caregiver, the goals were to regulate the
infants arousal and to respond to their bids for
attention and security (Gonzalez, Atkinson, &
Fleming, 2009).
Attachment Categories
Mary Ainsworth (1967) was the first to create
a research protocol to define and assess the
attachment relationship. It was based on an
observational procedure that identified patterns
of child responses to parenting behaviors that
led to different classifications. She described
these patterns as indicative of secure or insecure
attachment relationship patterns. The original
basis for the categories was careful observation

284

Journal of Family Theory & Review

of mothers and infants in their home environments. Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall
(1978) developed the Strange Situation Protocol (SSP) as a research tool for assessing
parentchild relationship patterns. The original tool led to classification of parentchild
relationship pattern into three distinct categories: secure, insecure-avoidant, and
insecure-anxious/ambivalent. In the secure
category the child explores the environment
and checks back with parent as secure base.
The child will engage with a stranger when the
parent is nearby, cries when the parent leaves,
and is happy to reunite with parent. Parents tend
to be sensitive and responsive in their interactions with their child. The insecure-avoidant
relationship category is characterized by the
child showing little interest in adults and tending to avoid or ignore the parent when the
stranger is present. The child lacks affective
expression and doesnt interact with adults
or the parent when he or she returns. In the
insecure-anxious/resistant category the child
expresses distress when the stranger is present,
even if the parent is nearby. The child expresses
distress when parent leaves but when parent
returns is often resistant to reuniting. Disorganized attachment was added as a fourth
category when several children did not fit into
the three identified classifications (Main &
Solomon, 1990). This classification represents
a lack of organized behavioral strategies for
managing stresses in the SSP. These children
may experience their caregivers as frightening
or frightened.

Internal Working Model

Bowlby (1980) explored the influence of the
early attachment relationships on lifelong development. Out of repeated interaction between
an infant and caregiver the young child begins
to develop an internal working model (IWM)
that reflects the patterns of caregiver responses
to the childs needs. This IWM mediates how
the child sees and approaches the world and
social interactions as safe, threatening, or confusing. Attachment behavior is resistant to
change but has the continuing potential for
change through interactions with others (e.g.,
own children and partner) that can lead to
reassessment and reorganization of the basic
(IWM) model.

Strange Situation Protocol

The SSP includes eight episodes with parent,
baby, and stranger (Ainsworth et al., 1978;
Mooney 2010). The eight episodes last about
20 minutes total and include separations and
reunions with the parent. During these episodes
the researchers observe two specific behavioral
responses; the amount of exploration and the
childs reactions to the departure and return
of the parent to determine which categories
of relationship patterns are represented by the
childs behavior.
The SSP has been studied extensively for ecological validity (Van IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg, 1988). There have been concerns raised
about the stability over time, the time frame
for use with young children, and whether the
procedure is able to capture the unique nature
of childfather interactions since it was constructed around behavioral concepts (i.e., sensitivity) based on observations of mothers. This
issue about relevance for fathers continues to be
debated (e.g., Grossman et al., 2002; Paquette &
Bigras, 2010) as new constructs (activation theory) and new instruments (e.g., The Risky Situation) have been created to specifically assess
fatherchild interactions and ensuing relationship patterns and their influence on children.
Parenting Sensitivity
One characteristic of both mothers and fathers
that has been studied extensively is sensitivity to
an infants cues. The role of paternal sensitivity
as a factor that predicts attachment has mixed
results. DeWolff and Van IJzendoorn (1997) in
their meta-analysis found a small but weak relationship between fathers sensitivity and attachment quality. Lucassen et al. (2011) describe
three decades of research on fathers sensitivity and the relationship to attachment security.
Higher levels of sensitivity are associated with
infantfather attachment, but this construct as it
has been assessed appears to have limited value
for understanding fatherchild attachment processes according to the meta-analytic studies
that have been conducted. This has led to new
attempts to measure fathers sensitivity in the
context of stimulating play (Paquette & Bigras,
2010). This approach offers the opportunity to
examine the two dimensions of comfort and
activation in understanding parentchild attachment patterns. The focus on fathers sensitivity

Attachment Theory and Fathers

in the context of play situations may be more
useful in discovering direct pathways to secure
attachments between fathers and children. The
fathers insensitivity and frightening behaviors
are linked to emotional underregulation at age
2 and to attention problems at age 7 (Hazen,
McFarland, Jacobvitz, & Boyd-Soisson, 2011).
Fathers sensitivity to distress represents another
potentially fruitful area to work on in parent education practice as it may bolster a fathers skill
set and provide another pathway to strengthen
secure attachment patterns.
Synchrony
Synchrony (Isabella & Belsky, 1991) has
emerged in attachment research as a construct
that overlaps with the general concept of sensitivity but focuses on face-to-face interaction
during alert, nondistressed times. It provides a
microanalytic focus on the interactive experience in which parentinfant behaviors are coordinated on the basis of sensitive responses of
parents. This approach aligns more closely with
fathers familiar role as an interactive partner in
exploration (similar to activation theory above).
More recent research has extended the construct
of synchrony to include concurrent biochemical
responses from parents. Feldman (2012a) has
presented a biobehavioral model for understanding parentinfant interactions that examine
observable synchronous behavior and hormonal
correlates of the behavior. Synchrony, like sensitivity, is affected by many different factors in the
environment of the parentchild system. It has
been useful in beginning to distinguish some differences in pathways and processes between the
development of motherchild and fatherchild
relationship patterns (Feldman, 2012a).
Parent State of Mind
Focusing on the adult in the childparent
dyad, George, Kaplan, and Main (1985) developed the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)
to assess parents state of mind about their
own experience as a child and how they have
internalized this into a template for responding
to their child. The measure is based on 20
open-ended questions and leads to four different classifications that are similar to the SSP
ratings for childparent interactions. The first
category, secure autonomous, represents
realistic, coherent, and emotionally open

285
responses that reflect value for attachment
relationships. These responses are related to
SSPs with children that are secure. A second
category, Dismissing, represents responses
for which the adult caregivers parents are
idealized but no specific details are shared.
Caregivers in this category were related to
SSP attachment that was avoidant. A third
category, Preoccupied, represents responses
that are unreflective, vacillating, and confusing
accounts of a conflicted childhood. Caregivers
in this category were related to SSPs that were
classified as ambivalent. A final category, Unresolved/Disorganized, represents someone
who may fit into the first through third categories but has lapses in the interview that include
references to traumatic events. Parents in this
category were related to disorganized SSPs.
Children may see these parents as frightening
or frightened (dangerous or helpless). The AAI
has been used to describe and assess intergenerational transmission of attachment patterns.
Summary of the Importance of Attachment
Theory
The significance of attachment theory to
long-term development is best described through
the results of longitudinal studies that have been
conducted to track child outcomes related to
different early attachment categories (e.g.,
Grossmann et al., 2005; Sroufe et al., 2005).
These studies track children and the impacts of
attachment on development and how these may
change over time. The results emphasize the
importance of early attachment and the development of internal working models and how
these persist as states of mind in adulthood.
The pathways that have been created by different attachment qualities are influential but not
deterministic and the results suggest that mothers and fathers have unique influences on child
personality development that emerge at different
stages of development (Grossmann et al., 2002).
Historical Review of Attachment
Research With Fathers
The focus on fathers using attachment theory
has led to different research questions over
4 decades that reflect attempts to apply the
original constructs and methods of study to
fatherchild relationships. The history of fathers
and attachment theory has mirrored in many

286

Journal of Family Theory & Review

ways the evolving concerns about the changing role of fathers, the importance of father
involvement in childrens lives, and fathers
influence on child development. Attachment
theory has also generated controversy about
generalizations to fatherchild relationships
(Grossmann et al., 2002; Paquette & Bigras,
2010) based on the application of methods
designed from motherinfant observations
and the limited explanatory power in regard
to understanding the developing fatherchild
relationship. Pleck (2007) also questions the
usefulness of attachment theory to describing
the influence of fathers on child development.
Although the major emphasis in attachment
research on fathers has been on the empirical
study of fatherchild attachment system, the
change in family systems and the social-political
context have influenced the types of questions
that researchers have asked and how their
results have been interpreted. The gender politics related to attachment theory and how this
has affected our views of attachment are critical
to making sense of the research agendas that
have emerged and the implications of research
for practice. The influence of gender politics
around valuing the role and importance of
fathers involvement in childrens lives will be a
thread that is woven into the historical review.
Phase 1: Fathers as Attachment Figures
Bretherton (2011) describes four different
phases of research and different focal questions in explaining how attachment theory
has been applied to understanding fathers and
fatherchild relationships. In the first phase starting in the 1960s, Ainsworth (1967) noted that
fathers and other adults were attachment figures
in some of the families that she observed. A
previous study by Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
had also described a similar pattern, with some
fathers emerging as primary attachment figures.
Bretherton notes that in both of these studies
fathers were selected by children because of
their responsiveness versus time spent in caretaking. Bowlby (1969) recognized that fathers
could also be important attachment partners but
saw them as supplementary playmate attachment figures rather than primary attachment
figures. Children would seek out mothers when
they needed comfort and fathers when they were
looking for a playmate. The research question
that came from these observations was, Can

fathers serve as primary and/or equal attachment partners? Originally, attachment theory
research focused on the importance of mothers
to child development and mental health, and
this fit well with the late 1940s and early 1950s
social and family environments. In both the
United States and the United Kingdom mothers
were moving out of the workforce into a primary
role of child care in the home as men returned
from World War II to take over jobs outside
the home. Attachment theory and the study of
problems with orphans from the war affirmed
the importance of mothers as consistent caregivers in the lives of young children. Fathers or
others may fulfill this role if mothers were not
available, but this was seen as an exception to
the typical attachment patterns.
Phase 2: Mother Hierarchy and Father Role
In Phase 2 (1960s and 1970s) Bretherton (2011)
describes the early work of Michael Lamb, who
began to ask new questions about the role of
fathers in attachment through a series of observational studies. Lamb (1976b) was interested in
addressing the hierarchy hypothesis that mothers
were the primary attachment figure and fathers
form supplementary attachments in the shadows
of the primary relationship. Lamb found that
infants demonstrated similar levels of approach
and contact with both mothers and fathers and
more affiliative behaviors (smiling, vocalizing,
and showing toys) to fathers than mothers. When
a stranger was introduced, infants shifted their
attention to the mothers. This child response to
stress illustrated the hierarchy of attachment to
mothers as preferred partners during times of
stress but affirmed that fathers could also be partners in secure-attachment relationships.
The changing family structures of the late
1960s and 1970s and the movement of women
into the workforce led to some new questions
about attachment and the role of fathers and
child care. By the mid-1970s there was clear
evidence that children did form early attachments with their fathers (Lamb & Lewis, 2010).
During this phase, Lamb (1977b) noted some
differences in fathers and mothers behavior
toward infants and that toddlers showed more
affiliative behaviors toward fathers (Lamb,
1977a). Bretherton (2011) notes that Lamb
suggested that motherinfant and fatherinfant
relationships may be experienced in different
ways by infants (mothers are a source of comfort

Attachment Theory and Fathers

in distress and fathers desired as stimulating
play partners) and that these roles may lead to
different impacts on development. The results
also document that fathers play an important
role in their childs life as attachment figures.
This fit with the emerging egalitarian ethic that
both mother and father are important for children but their pathways to secure attachment
relationships may be different. The role of
fathers sensitivity as a factor in fathers forming
secure attachments began to emerge as a confusing concept due to conflicting research results
(DeWolff & Van IJzendoorn, 1997).
Phase 3: Mother and Father Independent
Attachments
Another question emerged from these studies
that led to Phase 3: Do mothers and fathers have
different attachment security classifications? If
so, what are the implications for the original
theory that mothers are the primary attachment
figures and that an insecure attachment with
mothers would prevent a child from developing a
secure attachment with others. Main and Weston
(1981) confirmed Lambs (1978) findings that
while there was often concordance of attachment
between mothers and fathers, there was no systematic match of motherchild and fatherchild
SSP patterns. This research suggests that mothers and fathers attachment relationships are
both important and may affect different aspects
of child personality in different ways (Bowlby,
1988), yet the mother is still seen as the dominant influence during the early years.
Another area of research that was initiated
in the 1980s was the development of a new
measure to assess adult state of mind with
respect to attachment. The Adult Attachment
Interview (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1985) was
an open-ended set of questions to assess how
parents expressed their thinking about attachment relationships based on their recollections
of their own experiences as a child. This allowed
for the comparison of the adult attachment state
of mind to the child behaviors in the SSPs and
to answer the question, are intergenerational
relationship qualities independently transmitted
from mother and father adult internal working models? In a meta-analysis of AAI with
childparent attachment in SSP, Van IJzendoorn
(1995) found a strong association that supported
the transmission hypothesis for both mother and
fathers. This suggests that mothers and fathers

287
may both have independent attachment relationship patterns with their children based on their
own early experiences. This reinforces an ethic
of gender equality even though mothers still
spend more time with children (Pleck, 2010).
Phase 4: Father Attachment in the Family
Context
Bretherton (2011) describes longitudinal studies
in Phase 4 (1990s2000s) that begin to address
the question, are the developmental outcomes
of father and mother attachments different even
if both are secure? Study results (Grossmann
et al., 2005) demonstrate the complexity of the
relationships between attachment relationships
with mothers and fathers and prediction of child
behavior at different stages. Grossmann et al.s
(2002) results identify sensitivity in mothers during interaction with infants and fathers sensitivity during play in interaction with toddlers to
be the most salient predictors of important child
outcomes assessed at different ages (age 610
and age 16). This confirms the notion that different pathways (play vs. caregiving) and processes (sensitivity to distress and synchrony in
exploratory play) have different outcomes for
children.
In a meta-analysis of SSPs with motherchild
and fatherchild, DeWolff and van IJzendoorn
(1997) identified a large number of cases (38%)
in which the attachment category for mothers
and fathers was not concordant. These findings
led to calls to focus on family perspectives
to understand attachment relationships (Belsky, 1996; Cowan, 1997) that would include
fatherchild, motherchild, and fathermother
relationships (McHale, 2007).
The results of attachment research during
this time occur concurrently with increasing
family structure diversity that included a greater
focus on programs for responsible fatherhood
as well as an increase in nonmarital births and
single-mother families. Longitudinal studies
have included traditional family structures
that reflect more gender stereotypical roles in
their impacts on children. The mixed results of
research during this time may be related to the
changing expectations for father involvement,
with greater involvement of fathers as a new
norm (Pleck, 2010) but fathers increasingly were
not present in the home (Blankenhorn, 1995).
Are the longitudinal research results about
fathers attachment primarily through their role

288
as a playmate still relevant to understanding
the diverse experiences of fathers in changing
family structures in 2014? Bretherton (2011)
offers suggestions about how to move research
on attachment forward to address new questions
related to diverse family systems. A key question beyond how mothers and fathers are both a
secure base for exploration and a safe haven for
emotional regulation is how mothers and fathers
value and support each others contributions,
whether similar or different (Bretherton, 2011,
p. 21). This issue of attending to the coparenting
relationship is not new (Cowan, 1997) but has
continued to gain attention (McHale, 2007) and
begun to enter into research on fatherhood practice (Cowan, Cowan, Pruett, Pruett, & Wong,
2009). The call for a family system view of
attachment acknowledges that family context
is essential for understanding the fatherchild
attachment relationship and different pathways
and processes that may help explain not only
that the relationship does exist but, more important, how it happens in different family contexts.
Which factors support processes that lead to
secure attachment relationships and which factors function as risks for insecure attachment
relationships?
Toward a Family Model of Attachment
The call for a family perspective of attachment
comes from a number of sources (e.g., Belsky,
1996; Cowan, 1997). Fathers relationships
with children have been viewed as influenced more by outside factors (Belsky, 1996;
Doherty, Kouneski, & Erickson, 1998; Lundy,
2002; Madigan, Benoit, & Boucher, 2011;
Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2006). The fatherchild
attachment relationship is a two-way reciprocal relationship that is sensitive to a variety
of different factors in the father, the child,
the fathermother relationship, and the family
system. Most of the reviews of attachment
research about fathers end with the realization
that a complex set of factors interact and change
over time and in different contexts to influence
the fatherchild relationship. Parke (2002)
calls for a multilevel and dynamic approach
to understand the fatherchild relationship.
Lamb and Lewis (2011) note in their review of
parentchild relationships that current research
has begun to use multilevel, structural equations
and hierarchical modeling techniques to reflect
this understanding. They also caution that while

Journal of Family Theory & Review

this allows for more complex models to be
formulated, they are led by the data rather than
by good psychological theory (Lamb & Lewis,
2011, p. 471). Attachment theory constructs
are sometimes lost in the search for predictor
variables. The research studies of fathers and
attachment have been moving toward both
more complex models (Brown, McBride, Shin,
& Bost, 2007) and more longitudinal designs
(Grossman et al., 2002). There are many positive outcomes for children noted in reviews of
attachment studies with fathers (see Feldman,
2012a), which should not be dismissed or forgotten during the development of more complex
data-driven models.
The following model summarizes research
findings about fatherchild attachment relationships by describing multi-level influences,
beginning with what we know about individual child and father factors. These factors
help explain some of the differences in
fatherchild attachment patterns. The initial
study of family-level factors provides additional
information for understanding fatherchild
attachment pathways and processes. The final
level examined is the cultural context, another
influence on the fatherchild attachment relationship. The notion that fathers are more
influenced by external factors than mothers are
(Belsky, 1996; Doherty et al., 1998) reflects the
initial focus on motherchild relationships as a
dyadic bubble that begins with pregnancy and
continues through the early months of the first
year. In this dyadic bubble mothers and their
developing relationship are more insulated from
outside influences (Feldman, 2012a). Fathers
begin their relationship with their infants outside the maternal dyadic bubble and have to
find different pathways to enter into a secure
attachment relationship pattern.
Child Factors
There are some consistent factors that emerge
from the research literature about child characteristics that influence fatherchild attachment
patterns. The most common factor is child
gender, which seems to be related to different
interactional styles and synchrony that may
develop more easily between fathers and sons.
Fathers tendency to be more stimulating and
active as a play partners seems to fit better
with the attention patterns of sons (Feldman,
2012b). Another child factor is age or maturity;

Attachment Theory and Fathers

for example, with a premature birth, the child
may not be able to provide clear signals about
needs and may be less able to engage in active
play with fathers. This might slow down the
attachment relationship as a result of more
typical pathways with fathers. Temperament
traits are another possible source of influence
on attachment relationships with fathers (Wong,
Magelsdorf, Brown, Neff, & Shoppe-Sullivan,
2009). The childs behavioral tendencies as an
interactive partner can be an important factor in
achieving a satisfying synchrony with fathers.
Father Factors
There are a number of father factors that have
been identified in the literature as influential in
supporting the development of secure attachment relationships. Belsky (1996) identified
two personality characteristics, extraverted and
agreeable, as correlated with secure attachment
relationships with infants. These both set the
stage for more engagement and more enjoyable
interactions with an infant. Grossmann et al.
(2002) noted that fathers sensitivity in play
was an important pathway to secure attachment patterns. Lundy (2003) cites fathers
mind-mindedness as an ability to understand how the child is thinking that supports
engagement in synchronous interaction, which
is related to secure attachment. Fathers beliefs
about their role as important (Wong et al., 2009)
are also related to secure attachment. Madigan
et al. (2011) identified paternal state of mind
as an important predictor for secure attachment.
Fathers bring a variety of characteristics that
appear to be influential as relationship partners
in the attachment dance. The influence of male
socialization on fathers as they approach the
attachment dance is an area that needs further
exploration and clarification of processes and
pathways to secure attachment.
Family Factors
A family factor that has been identified as
important to childfather attachment is the quality of the coparenting relationship (Brown et al.,
2007). The mother functions as a gatekeeper
(Allen & Hawkins, 1999; Schoppe-Sullivan,
Brown, Cannon, Mangelsdorf, & Sokolowski,
2008) who can invite and support fathers to be
involved in parenting or can dismiss and discourage them from developing a close relationship

289
with their children. Coparenting patterns emerge
early in the first year of life with a new baby
(McHale, 2007), which suggests that interventions to support father attachment should begin
shortly after birth. Palm and Joyce (1994), in a
qualitative study with fathers of young children,
found that some fathers expressed competition
with mothers for childrens attention as a barrier
even if the mother was not playing a gatekeeper
role to limit access to the baby. This new triadic relationship may become a barrier for some
fathers that blocks their entry into the new family
system if they perceive that children favor their
mothers to meet their needs. Fathers may feel
excluded from the dyadic bubble, and lose confidence in their ability to meet their childs needs
for comfort and emotional regulation. Marital
conflict is another family-level factor that has
been identified (Van IJzendoorn, Schuengel, &
Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1999). The research
literature tends to ignore the residence status
of fathers, which also is a major factor that
keeps fathers from regular interaction and can
lessen their influence on the stability of the
family system. The influence of multiple family
systems on fathers reflects the complexity of
even the simplest family form of mother, father,
and child. The motherfather relationship and
the emerging triadic family interactions serve
as contexts that support fatherchild attachment
relationships and create a sense of family as a
larger secure base and safe haven or encourage
detachment.
Cultural Context
The role of cultural and community context is
also important but the specific research base
around attachment theory is limited. Feldman
(2012b) does describe some specific culturally
defined roles for fathers that may change the
trajectory of the attachment relationship based
on how roles of fathers, especially with young
children, are defined. Belsky (1996) identifies
workfamily harmony that influences fathers
attachment patterns. In a related area, family
income (Nievar & Becker, 2008) has been
described as a factor that influences stress that
may limit parent sensitivity, affect parents
emotional regulation, and affect parents ability
to engage in enjoyable synchronous interaction
and serve as a source of comfort. Cultural factors
and larger community context are one area in
which the confluence of attachment theory

290

Journal of Family Theory & Review

and ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1994)

might generate new insight and understanding
of fatherchild relationships.
This summary of research using multiple
levels of factors that influence fatherchild
attachment patterns confirms the call for more
complex and inclusive models and thinking.
The original focus of attachment theory on the
motherchild relationship based on observation
of the dyadic bubble from pregnancy through
infancy has been expanded through longitudinal
research. The other direction of expansion of
attachment theory is from the motherchild to
fatherchild to family and cultural levels of
influence that comes from the interface with
family systems theory and social ecology theory.
The complexity even with sophisticated statistical pathway modeling may miss capturing the
unique pathways and processes of fathers to
secure attachment relationships.
A Focus on Practice
There are at least three distinct areas of practice in which attachment theory and research
have been used as a framework to inform and
guide practice. The first is the use of attachment theory in clinical work (e.g., Berlin,
2005; Oppenheim & Goldsmith, 2007). The
application of attachment theory to clinical
practice has a long history related to the close
connection with psychoanalytic theory (Fonagy,
2001). Infant mental health practice over the
past 15 years has been guided by concepts from
attachment theory and research (Berlin, 2005).
Berlin (2005) discusses two reviews of interventions that used attachment theory as a guide
(Bakersmans-Kranenburg, Van IJzendoorn, &
Juffer, 2003; Egeland, Weinfield, Bosquet, &
Cheng, 2000). The reviews indicate that there
is not a clear consensus about guidelines for
effective intervention programs. This is not
surprising considering the number of factors
that research on attachment has identified as
related to attachment patterns. Circle of Security
(Cooper, Hoffman, Powell, & Marvin, 2009)
is one program that provides both a clinical
protocol and a parent education program based
on attachment theory that has begun to demonstrate effectiveness. This is an area in which
there continues to be discussion to determine
how to best use attachment concepts to guide
treatment and how to best assess the quality of
interventions. Infant mental health practice has

focused primarily on motherchild relationships

and application to fathers is still limited.
A second area of practical application is
concerned with developing public policy based
on attachment research with fathers. Policy
related to child custody and visitation has often
discounted fathers in deference to the primacy of
the motherchild attachment relationship. Lamb
(2012) critiques the depiction and use of attachment research in family court systems. This is
an area in which the application of attachment
theory to fatherchild relationships has been
missing. The debate on the importance or essential nature of fatherchild relationships (e.g.,
Auerbach & Silverstein, 1999; Pleck, 2010)
has limited the exploration of father-inclusive
policy related to these areas. Another policy
issue related to attachment theory that could
emerge in the future is the focus on attachment
processes with fathers that supports the efficacy
of early and extended parental leave for fathers.
The application of fatherchild attachment
theory and research to public policy remains an
area for future research.
The final area of practice that is most familiar
to the author as a practitioner is the development
of parent education programs that focus on both
prevention and early intervention services (e.g.,
Fagan & Palm, 2004; Hoffman, 2011; McBride
& Lutz, 2004) for supporting secure fatherchild
relationships. This area will be examined more
thoroughly to suggest how attachment theory
can be used to guide practice. A major criticism
of attachment theory is that it focuses primarily on the motherchild and leaves out fathers.
Fatherhood programs by their nature primarily
focus on fathers and the fatherchild relationship and are fertile ground for applying attachment theory concepts that coincide with fathers
desires to develop close and caring relationships with their young children. Recent research
by Cowan, Cowan, Pruett, Pruett, and Wong
(2009) suggests that a more effective approach to
reaching fathers would be coparenting programs
that focus on both the motherfather dyad and
the motherfatherchild triad. The next section
explores the practice literature with a focus on
fathers and attachment.
Attachment and Parent Education Practice With
Fathers
Hoffman (2011) reviews attachment theory
and the connections to practice in fatherhood

Attachment Theory and Fathers

programs. He summarizes some of the key
insights from his review of attachment theory and research. He describes the connection
between fathers caregiving and the fatherchild
bond and suggests that fathers should be supported in their learning of caregiving skills.
He also notes that the road to attachment is
longer for fathers as they begin at a different
place from mothers, who begin the attachment
process earlier in a more closely connected
biological manner, beginning with pregnancy.
Physical contact between fathers and infants
is an important pathway for building trust and
connection that leads to secure attachment.
Since attachment is a two-way street, it is
important for fathers to understand both typical
child development and individual differences
in children to help develop mind-mindedness
(Lundy, 2002).
Hoffman (2011) summarizes important
take-home lessons for practitioners. Practice
should begin with prenatal and early parenting education services that include a specific
focus on fatherinfant relationships. These
interventions should promote physical contact
with infants and help fathers learn to understand their babies cues in both caretaking
and play situations. Interventions that promote and support sensitive fatherchild play
will most likely build on and enhance secure
fatherchild attachment patterns. Active play
is considered a direct and comfortable pathway for fathers to develop secure attachment
patterns.
In examining the influence of fathers on
healthy social emotional development, Palm
(2008) uses attachment theory to explore the
multiple ways that fathers influence young
childrens mental health. This approach uses
Palkovitzs (1997) expansion of the concept of
father involvement to capture direct and indirect
influences on children and their early attachment
relationships. The father plays three distinct
roles that affect secure attachment patterns in
the family contexts. First, fathers have a direct
impact through fatherchild interactions, in that
they function as a secure base and safe haven for
young children, which leads to secure attachment patterns. Second, fathers have an important
indirect influence through the fathermother
relationship, in which fathers offer support to
mothers and model motherfather relationships.
This adds substance to the IWM of relationships for the young child. Finally, fathers have

291
a family systems impact through the contribution to the family system as a co-provider
and protector. This adds stability and sense of
safety (safe haven) to the family environment.
This combination of influences supports secure
attachment processes for mothers, fathers, and
the family unit.
This conceptualization uses attachment theory to help define important goal areas for
fathers and a focus for parent education activities. It also accommodates the idea that fathers
may have different pathways to attachment and
at the same time should be aware of the roles that
temperament and child gender play as mediators
of attachment processes. Fathers pathways can
include both sensitivity in caregiving and stimulating play to support exploration. Fathers also
learn that a positive coparenting relationship
plays an important role in developing a secure
fatherchild relationship and a secure family
attachment system.
The Circle of Security parenting program
(Cooper et al, 2005) is a useful model for parent
education and was developed primarily with
mothers in clinical settings. I was recently
trained in this model and have had the opportunity to use it with groups of incarcerated fathers
over the past 2 years. The model depicts attachment theory concepts in the Circle of Security
diagram (Cooper et al., 2005), which gives
equal attention to the secure base that supports
exploration and autonomy and the safe haven
that offers comfort and assistance to a child in
distress to help regulate his or her emotions.
This model makes explicit the specific roles and
behaviors that parents can practice to support
secure attachment in young children. It also provides parents with insight into their own state of
mind (Powell et al., 2007) by introducing them
to the concept of shark music, which alerts them
to recognize times when they feel challenged or
unable to meet their childs needs. Palm (2013)
adapted the Circle of Security program and
integrated it into a program for incarcerated
fathers. The program evaluation, using father
reports of changes, demonstrated significant
changes related to attachment behaviors, including understanding the importance of being
with a child and understanding shark music as
a concept that may influence interactions with
their child.
A recent study by Benzies, Magill-Evans,
Harrison, Gleri, and Kimak (2006) evaluating a brief video-feedback and home-visiting

292
program with fathers demonstrated a positive
effect on fathers interactional behavior. Fathers
were more sensitive to infant cues and better at
fostering childrens cognitive growth. Feldman
(2012a) also recommended video feedback
as an effective technique for increasing both
sensitivity and synchrony for parents. Video
feedback appears to be a tool for increasing
fathers awareness of infant cues and offering
opportunities to reflect on when and why synchrony is occurring in their interactions with
their children.
My work as a practitioner over more than 30
years in a variety of settings (e.g., schools, Head
Start programs, hospitals, correctional facilities)
has focused on trying to facilitate mens quest to
develop a close relationship with their children
ages 0 to 5. Attachment theory and the concept
of secure attachment have been useful in discerning pathways to the types of relationships
fathers want to develop with their children. This
work has focused on some of the differences that
fathers bring to the parentchild relationship
(Fagan & Palm, 2004; Palm, 1997). These differences have been based on innate dispositions
(Rossi, 1984) reinforced by male socialization processes. These include differences in
sensitivity to visual, nonverbal, and olfactory
cues that might explain some of the different
research findings related to gender differences in
sensitivity of mothers versus fathers and attachment patterns (DeWolff & Van IJzendoorn,
1997). The field of infant mental health has
used attachment theory to more clearly define
a role for fathers in promoting socio-emotional
development and emotional regulation. The
Circle of Security model of attachment has
brought clarity to working with fathers and to
identifying some of fathers unique struggles
with the attachment process. In my experience,
fathers seem to struggle more with being a safe
haven when children are in distress. It is easy for
fathers to miscue and give the message to children that they need to figure it out on their own.
This is related to a strong male socialization
message of asking for help being a sign of weakness. Being a secure base to support and even
enhance or stretch a child in exploration appears
to be a role that fits with male socialization and
the traditional role of fathers to be risk taker,
protector, and a connection with the outside
world.
As a scholar and a consumer of fathering
research over the past 30 years, I believe that

Journal of Family Theory & Review

the emphasis in attachment theory on relationships is a critical focus for supporting
early father involvement. This helps shift the
emphasis from father presence or being there
to being with as the primary goal for men
to pursue in order to develop close and secure
attachment relationships with their child. This
is about a deeper level of connection that is
at the heart of attachment theory and aligns
perfectly with mens quest to be closer to their
own children. The concept of relationship repair
also is an important idea for fathers and reflects
the recognition that all parents are imperfect but
can build stronger relationships by being aware
of ruptures in relationships and developing the
skills to make repairs. The author has embraced
the mantra bigger, stronger, wiser, and kind
from the Circle of Security program (Powell
et al., 2007), as it fits well with mens socialized
image of a good fathers in US culture. I have
also discovered that it resonates with the incarcerated fathers whom I teach. It helps restore
a balance to providing both nurturance when a
child is distressed and guidance to explore and
take risks. While the focus on relationship as a
primary outcome or goal is clear, the multiple
pathways to positive fatherchild relationships
and how to discern the most important knowledge, skills, and attitudes to focus on as a
parent educator continue to be a challenge as
family contexts become more fluid for many
fathers.
Future Directions for Theory
and Practice
There are many opportunities for attachment
theory to continue to evolve and to fill in some of
the research gaps, as well as expand to include
new concepts and areas of research. It is at the
interface with other theories (ecological theory,
neuroscience, and family systems theory) that
attachment theory is most likely to be productive and generate new models and insights into
fatherchild relationships (Ainsworth, 1990)
The final section of this article focuses on new
research methods related to attachment patterns and the contributions of neuroscience to
attachment.
Research Measures
There are some new methods for assessing
attachment concepts that may help describe the

Attachment Theory and Fathers

unique dynamics that are related to fatherchild
attachment. For example, the Risky Situation
assists in explaining how fathers in their role
of supporting exploration and risk-taking affect
child socio-emotional development (Dumount
& Paquette, 2013). New instruments have been
developed to assess parentchild attachment
relationships at different ages, including the
Sensitive and Challenging Interactive Play Scale
(SCIP) for the early childhood years (Grossman
et al., 2002) and the Child Attachment Interview
(CAI) Fonagy (2001), for use with children age
814. These instruments allow for assessment of
the attachment relationships at different stages
of development and help track the types of
relationships that occur at different ages.
Neuroscience and Attachment
Important insights can be gained through the
integration of attachment theory with emerging
neuroscience research, which helps elucidate
the role of hormones in supporting sensitivity
in fatherchild interaction (Fernandez-Duque,
Valeggia, & Mendoza, 2009; Gettler, McDade,
Agustin, & Kuzawa, 2011). The ethological
roots of the theory and role of hormones may
open some new doors to understanding the signaling dynamics between fathers and children
and the communication processes involved in
building fatherchild relationships (Fleming,
Corter, Stallings, & Steiner, 2002). The connection to brain activity and neurochemical levels
reveals the unconscious state of mind in a
new light. Attachment theory concepts provide
a framework for explaining the meaning of the
state of mind at a micro level (Hughes & Baylin,
2012). Current research on brain activity is still
in the initial stages of discovery (e.g., Mayes,
Magidson, Lejuez, & Nicholls, 2009) and will
potentially create neurobiological explanations for observed attachment behavior with
infants. The attachment framework provides a
taxonomic system that might be useful in mapping psychobiological differences in types of
infantparent relationship categories (Gonzalez
et al., 2009).
Feldman (2012a) presents a theory of biobehavioral synchrony that integrates the attachment concept of synchrony with neurobiological process occurring in children and parents to
create affiliative bonds. The study of brain development in infants and young children related to
attachment processes has been the focus of study

293
for several years (e.g., Shonkoff & Phillips,
2000). The research on fathers and hormones
(Naber, Poslawsky, van IJzendoorn, van Engeland, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2013) links the
introduction of the hormone oxytocin to fathers
increased sensitivity to toddlers in a play situation. Feldman (2012a) reports that oxytocin is
related in different ways to mothers and fathers
at 6 months. For fathers oxytocin is related
to stimulatory touch, encouragement of exploration, and high positive arousal. For mothers, oxytocin is related to affectionate parenting behaviors. Feldman (2012b) distinguishes
synchronous behavior in fathers as being jerky,
with high arousal and more random contour than
mothers more rhythmic contour. This connection of biochemical indicators to behavioral patterns describes mothers and fathers such that
hormones play a role in supporting parenting
sensitivity, but behaviors in fathers and mothers
are different, leading through different pathways
to secure attachment.
Hughes and Baylin (2012) have translated
parentchild relationships (stress, emotional
regulation, and early social emotional development) into brain-based explanations to guide
practice. They have identified five domains of
parenting that are mapped onto brain activity to describe how the attachment process
functions in our heads. This model provides
new understanding of how different parenting
processes work to support effective parenting
and lead to secure attachment relations. The
five systems are (a) the parental approach system, or the ability to feel comfortable with the
childs bids for attention; (b) the parental reward
system, or the ability to experience interacting
with ones child as pleasurable, satisfying, and
rewarding; (c) the child-reading system, or the
ability to understand and read the childs emotional cues (sensitivity to cues); (d) the parental
meaning-making system, or the ability to create
a coherent personal narrative (reflect on own
state of mind); and (e) the parental executive
system, or the ability to regulate internal state
(emotions), monitor parentchild connection
(synchrony), and engage in repair as needed.
These are helpful because they describe specific
skill areas to focus on in order to support secure
fatherchild attachment relationships. These
concepts provide new insights into fatherchild
attachment dynamics that are mirrored in brain
activity and can help practitioners set specific
goals.

294

Journal of Family Theory & Review

Conclusion

The research on fathers generated by attachment

theory encompasses different levels of analysis,
from microanalytic interactions between fathers
and infants to cultural influences on fathers
(e.g., male socialization) and their attachment
relationships with their children. The multidisciplinary foundations of attachment theory
(Bowlby, 1969) continue to be stretched to
include central constructs from family systems
theory, ecological theory, and neuroscience
research. This activity demonstrates the vitality
of attachment theory in generating new hypotheses about the processes and pathways that lead to
fatherchild attachment patterns. The dynamic
nature of parentchild relationships and the
diverse family and cultural contexts continue to
confound research findings and limit our ability
to discover a consistent set of salient predictor
variables for secure attachment. At the same
time the foundational constructs of attachment
theory continue to be solid in describing some
clear principles for fathers that can be applied to
practice to support fatherchild secure attachment relationships. The quality of fatherchild
interactions as a secure base for exploration
and a safe haven in times of distress continues
to inform practice in a useful manner. The
application of attachment theory to fathers in
diverse family systems draws our attention to
the importance of considering context when
working with fathers. Neuroscience and biobehavioral inquiries open up new opportunities to
map out ways of describing different pathways
and processes to secure attachments for fathers
and infants.
References
Ainsworth, M. (1967). Infancy in Uganda: Infant care
and the growth of love. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Ainsworth, M. (1990). Some considerations regarding theory and assessment relevant to attachments
beyond infancy. In M. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, &
E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment during the
preschool years: Theory, research and intervention
(pp. 463489). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S.
(1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological
study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Allen, S. M. & Hawkins, A. J. (1999). Maternal
gate-keeping: Mothers beliefs and behaviors that

inhibit greater father involvement in family work.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 199212.
Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (1999). Deconstructing the essential father. American Psychologist, 54, 397407.
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Van IJzendoorn, M.
H., & Juffer, F. (2003). Less is more: Meta-analysis
of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early
childhood. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 195215.
Belsky, J. (1996). Parent, infant, and social contextual antecedents of fatherson attachment security.
Developmental Psychology, 65, 14441456.
Benzies, K., Magill-Evans, J., Harrison, M. J., Gleri,
M., & Kimak, C. (2006, June). Fathers and infants:
Effects of video self-modelling and feedback. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the 15th Biennial International Conference on Infant Studies,
Westin Miyako, Kyoto, Japan. Retrieved from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p125231_html
Berlin, L. (2005). Intervention to enhance early
attachments: The state of the filed today. In L.
Berlin, Y. Ziv, L. Amaya-Jackson, & M. Greenberg (Eds.), Enhancing early attachment: Theory,
research, intervention and policy (pp. 333). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Blankenhorn, D. (1995). Fatherless America. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment
(Vol. 1). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss. Vol. 3: Loss,
sadness and depression. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Bowlby, J. (1982). A secure base. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London, UK: Routledge.
Bretherton, I. (2011). Fathers in attachment theory
and research: a review. Early Child Development
& Care, 180(12), 923.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of
human development. In International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 3, 2nd ed.). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
Brown, G. L., McBride, B. A., Shin, N., & Bost, K. K.
(2007). Parenting predictors of fatherchild attachment security in the first 3 years. Fathering: A
Journal of Theory, Research about Men as Fathers,
5(3), 197219.
Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., Powell, B., & Marvin, R.
(2005). The circle of security intervention In J.
Berlin, Y. Ziv, M. Amaya-Jackson, & M. T. Greenberg (Eds.), Enhancing early attachments: Theory,
research, intervention, and policy (pp. 127151).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Cowan, P. A. (1997). Beyond meta-analysis: A plea
for a family systems view of attachment. Child
Development, 68, 601603.

Attachment Theory and Fathers

Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Pruett, M. K., Pruett, K.,
& Wong, J. J. (2009). Promoting fathers engagement with children: Preventive interventions for
low-income families. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 71, 663679.
DeWolff, M., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis of parental
antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 571591.
Doherty, W. J., Kouneski, E. F., & Erickson, M. F.
(1998). Responsible fathering: An overview and
conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 60, 277292.
Dumount, C., & Paquette, D. (2013). What about the
childs tie to the father? A new insight into fathering, fatherchild development and the activation
relationship theory. Early Child Development and
Care, 183, 430446.
Egeland, B., Weinfield, N. S., Bosquet, M., & Cheng,
V. K. (2000). Remembering, repeating, and working through: Lessons from attachment-based interventions. In J. Ofosky & H. E. Fitzgerald (Eds.),
WAIMH handbook of infant mental health. Vol. 4:
Infant mental health in groups at high risk (pp.
3589). New York, NY: Wiley.
Fagan, J., & Palm, G. (2004). Fathers and early childhood programs. Clifton Heights, NY: Delmar.
Feldman, R. (2012a). Biobehavioral synchrony: A
model for integrating biological and microsocial
behavioral processes in the study of parenting.
Parenting: Science and Practice, 12, 154164.
Feldman, R. (2012b). Parentinfant synchrony: A
biobehavioral model of mutual influences on the
formation of affiliative bonds. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 27(2),
4251.
Fernandez-Duque, E., Valeggia, C. R., & Mendoza,
S. P. (2009). The biology of paternal care in human
and nonhuman primates. Annual Review of Anthropology, 38, 115130.
Fleming, A. S., Corter, C., Stallings, J., & Steiner, M.
(2002). Testosterone and prolactin are associated
with emotional responses to infant cries in new
fathers. Hormones and Behavior, 42(4), 399413.
Fonagy. P. (2001). Attachment theory and psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Othu Press.
Fox, N. A., Kimmerly, N. L., & Schafer, W. D.
(1991). Attachment to mother/attachment to
father: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 62,
210255.
George, C. Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1985). Adult
attachment interview. Unpublished manuscript,
University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Gettler, L. T., McDade, T. W., Agustin, S. S., &
Kuzawa, C. W. (2011). Short-term changes
in fathers hormones during father child play:
Impacts of paternal attitudes and experience.
Hormones and Behavior, 60(5), 599606.

295
Gonzalez, A., Atkinson, L., & Fleming, A. S. (2009).
Attachment and comparative psychobiology of
mothering. In M. De Haan & M. E. Gunnar (Eds.).
Handbook of developmental social neuroscience
(pp. 225245). New York, NY: Guilford.
Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Fremmer-Bombik,
E., Kindler, H., Scheuerer-Englisch, H., & Zimmermann, P. (2002). The uniqueness of the
childfather attachment relationship: Fathers sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in
a 16-year longitudinal study. Social Development,
11, 307331.
Grossmann, K. E., Grossman, K., & Waters, E.
(2005). Attachment from infancy to adulthood:
The major longitudinal studies. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Hazen, N. L., McFarland, L., Jacobvitz, D., &
Boyd-Soisson, E. (2011). Fathers frightening
behaviours and sensitivity with infants: Relations with fathers attachment representations,
fatherinfant attachment, and childrens later outcomes. In L. A. Newland, H. S. Freeman, & D. D.
Coyl (Eds.), Emerging topics on father attachment
(pp. 5068). New York, NY: Routledge
Hoffman, J. (2011) Father factors: What social
science research tells us about fathers and
how to work with them. Father Involvement Research Alliance at the University of
Guelph, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.
fira.ca/cms/documents/211/FatherFactorsFinal.pdf
Hughes, D. A., & Baylin, J. (2012). Brain-based parenting: The neuroscience of caregiving for healthy
attachment. New York, NY: Norton.
Isabella, R. A., & Belsky, J. (1991). Interactional synchrony and the origins of infantmother attachment: A replication study. Child Development, 62,
373384.
Karen, R. (1998). Becoming attached. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Lamb, M. E. (1976a). The role of the father in child
development. New York, NY: Wiley.
Lamb, M. E. (1976b). Twelve-month olds and their
parents: Interactions in a laboratory playroom.
Developmental Psychology, 12, 237244.
Lamb, M. E. (1977a). The development of
motherinfant and fatherinfant interactions in the
second year of life. Developmental Psychology,
13, 637648.
Lamb, M. E. (1977b). Motherinfant and
fatherinfant interaction in the first year of
life. Child Development, 48, 167181.
Lamb, M. E. (1978). Qualitative aspects of mother
infant and fatherinfant attachments in the second
year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 1,
265275.
Lamb, M. E. (2012). A wasted opportunity to engage
with the literature on the implications of attachment research for family court professionals. Family Court Review, 50(3), 481485.

296
Lamb, M. E., & Lewis, C. (2010). The development
and significance of fatherchild relationships in
two parent families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role
of the father in child development (5th ed., pp.
94153). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lamb, M. E., & Lewis, C. (2011). The role of
parentchild relationships in child development. In
M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental science (6th ed., pp. 469518). New York,
NY: Psychology Press.
Lucassen, N., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Volling, B.
L., Thamer, A., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.
J., Verhulst, F. C., & Tiemeier, H. (2011). The
association between paternal sensitivity and
infantfather attachment security: A meta-analysis
of three decades of research. Journal of Family
Psychology, 25(6), 986992.
Lundy, B. L. (2002). Paternal socio-psychological
factors and infant attachment: The mediating role
of synchrony in fatherinfant interactions. Infant
Behavior and Development, 25, 221236.
Lundy, B. L. (2003) Fatherinfant and motherinfant
face-to-face
interactions:
Difference
in
mind-related comments and infant attachment?
Infant Behavior and Development, 26, 200212.
Madigan, S., Benoit, D., & Boucher, C. (2011).
Exploration of the links among fathers unresolved
states of mind with respect to attachment, atypical
paternal behavior, and disorganized infantfather
attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 32(3),
286304.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedure for
identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented
during the Ainsworth strange situation. In M.
T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & M. E. Cummings
(Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 121160).
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Main, M., & Weston, D. R. (1981). The quality of
the toddlers relationship to mother and father,
related to conflict behavior and the readiness to
establish new relationships. Child Development,
52, 932940.
Mayes, L. C., Magidson, J., Lejuez, C. W., &
Nicholls, S. S. (2009). Social relationships as primary rewards: The neurobiology of attachment. In
M. De Haan & M. R. Gunnar (Eds.), Handbook of
developmental social neuroscience (pp. 342377).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
McBride, B. A., & Lutz, M. M. (2004) Intervention:
Changing the nature and extent of father involvement. In M. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in
child development (4th ed., pp. 446475). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
McHale, J. (2007). Charting the bumpy road of coparenthood. Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2012). Adult attachment orientations and relationship processes. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4, 250274.

Journal of Family Theory & Review

Mooney, C. G. (2010) Theories of attachment. St.
Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
Naber, F., Poslawsky, I. E., van IJzendoorn, M. H.,
van Engeland, H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg,
M. J. (2013). Brief report: Oxytocin enhances
paternal sensitivity to a child with autism:
A double-blind within-subject experiment with
intranasally administered oxytocic. Journal
Autism Developmental Disorders, 43, 224229.
Newland, L. A., Freeman, H. S., & Coyl, D. D. (2011).
Emerging topics on father attachment. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Nievar, M. A., & Becker, B. J. (2008). Sensitivity as a privileged predictor of attachment:
A second perspective on DeWolff and van IJzendoorns meta-analysis. Social Development, 17(1),
102114.
Oppenheim, D., & Goldsmith, D. F. (2007). Attachment theory in clinical work with children. New
York, NY: Guilford.
Palkovitz, R. (1997). Reconstructing involvement:
Expanding conceptualizations of mens caring in
contemporary families. In A. Hawkins & D. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond deficit
perspectives (pp. 200216). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Palm, G. F. (1997). Promoting generative fathering through parent and family education. In A.
J. Hawkins & D. C. Dollahite (Eds.), Generative fathering: Beyond deficit perspectives (pp.
167182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Palm, G. (2008, October). Fathers and infant mental health. Seminar presented at Minnesota Fathers
and Family Networks Fall Seminar Series, Minneapolis, MN.
Palm, G. F. (2013, November 69). Parenting program for incarcerated fathers: Adjusting the focus.
Poster presented at the annual conference of the
National Council on Family Relations, San Antonio, TX.
Palm, G. F., & Joyce, W. (1994, November). Attachment from a fathers perspective. Paper presented
at the annual conference of the National Council
on Family Relations, Minneapolis, MN.
Paquette, D., & Bigras, M. (2010). The risky situation: A procedure for assessing the fatherchild
activation relationship, Early Child Development
and Care, 180, 3350.
Parke, R. D. (2002). Fathers and families. In M. H.
Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Vol. 3:
Status and social conditions of parenting (2nd ed.,
pp. 317338). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pleck, J. (2007). Why could father involvement benefit children? Theoretical perspectives. Applied
Developmental Science, 11(4), 196202.
Pleck, J. (2010). Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualization and theoretical linkages to child outcomes. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father

Attachment Theory and Fathers

in child development (5th ed., pp. 5893). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Powell, B., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., & Marvin,
R. (2007). The Circle of Security project. In D.
Oppenheim & D. F. Goldsmith (Eds.), Attachment theory in clinical work with children (pp.
172202). New York, NY: Guilford.
Rossi, A. S. (1984). Gender and parenthood. American Sociological Review, 4, 119.
Schaffer, H. R., & Emerson, P. E. (1964). The
development of social attachments in infancy.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development (Vol. 29, Serial No. 94). Ann Arbor,
MI: Society for Research in Child Development.
Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Brown, G. J., Cannon, E.
A., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Sokolowski, M. S.
(2008). Maternal gatekeeping, coparenting quality, and fathering behavior in families with infants.
Journal of Psychology, 22(3), 389398.
Schoppe-Sullivan, S., Diener, M., Mangelsdorf, S.,
Brown, G., McHale, J., & Frosch, C. (2006).
Attachment and sensitivity in family contexts: The
roles of parent and infant gender. Infant and Child
Development, 15, 367385.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.) (2000).
From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of
early childhood development. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.

297
Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins,
W. A. (2005). The development of the person. New
York, NY: Guilford.
Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Adult attachment
representations, parental responsiveness and
infant attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 117.
Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & DeWolff, M. (1997). In
search of the absent fathers: Meta-analysis of
infantfather behavior. Child Development, 68,
604609.
Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Kroonenberg, P. M.
(1988). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment:
A meta-analysis of the strange situation. Child
Development, 59(1), 147156.
Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Schuengel, C., &
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (1999). Disorganized attachment in early childhood: Meta-analysis
of precursors, concomitants, and sequelae. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 225249.
Wong, M. S., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Brown, G. L., Neff,
C., & Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2009). Parental
beliefs, infant temperament, and marital quality:
Associations with infantmother and infantfather
attachment. Journal of Family Psychology, 23,
828838. doi:10.1037/a0016491