Early Child Development and Care

Vol. 180, Nos. 1&2, January–February 2010, 25–32

INTERVIEW
Fathers’ role as attachment figures: an interview with Sir Richard
Bowlby
Lisa A. Newlanda* and Diana D. Coylb
a
Division of Counseling and Psychology in Education, The University of South Dakota,
Vermillion, South Dakota, USA; bChild Development Program, California State University,
Chico, California, USA
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 16:17 27 September 2013

(Received 23 June 2009; final version received 8 July 2009)

Taylor and Francis
GECD_A_441645.sgm

Early
10.1080/03004430903414679
0300-4430
Original
Taylor
102010
180
00000January
Childhood
&Article
Francis
(print)/1476-8275
2010
Development(online)
and Care

Sir Richard Bowlby, son of John Bowlby, has carried on his father’s work by
lecturing and writing on the topic of attachment theory. He has initiated and
maintained international connections with researchers, practitioners and agencies
in the field of child development, and has produced training videos to more widely
disseminate information about attachment theory to professionals working with
children and families. In this interview, conducted in London in February of 2009,
Richard responded to questions regarding the father’s role as an attachment figure,
highlighting new theoretical directions and current research. He also addressed
cultural influences on fathering and attachment, and offered suggestions for
researchers and practitioners.
Keywords: child attachment security; fathering; context; culture; childcare

Sir Richard, when did you become interested in attachment theory?

I was not chatting with my father about attachment theory when my babies were tiny.
I only had discussions with him much later. And he didn’t offer any insight either. He
only made one comment to my wife, which was that “you’re doing fine” (see Bowlby,
2004, p. 21). It wasn’t until my children were eight or nine years old that I decided I
had better read some of my father’s work. I better read these three thick volumes. My
father said: “Well don’t start on Volume 1, you’ll find it very boring; start on Volume
2, it’s a lot more interesting”. He was right, but he made a mistake. I should have
started on Chapter 11 of Volume 1, because that is all about how we develop these
primary attachment bonds. After my father died, I thought I had better learn a bit more
about it. Xenia (my wife) and I went to a series of one-hour evening lectures on attach-
ment theory, and we got to know the people quite well. Mario Marrone, who was orga-
nising the lectures, and who co-founded the Attachment & Human Development
Journal, said that he was going to repeat the series of lectures. He asked whether I
would do an introductory talk about my father. I said no – I had never spoken in
public, but Mario said that he had already advertised that I was going to speak. So I
made a video and showed it at the next series of lectures. At the end, I asked if there
were any questions. Mario had said: “I think you’ll find that you know more than you
realise”, and he was right, because of course they were asking me questions about my

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0300-4430 print/ISSN 1476-8275 online

© 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/03004430903414679
http://www.informaworld.com
 26 L.A. Newland and D.D. Coyl

dad, nobody else’s dad. Slowly this (interest in attachment) started perking up. That
was in the mid-1990s. But what really made the difference was the birth of my first
grandchild, because suddenly I saw all of this happening before my eyes. I had some
knowledge by that point. And then I made the real shift to include fathers. You know,
I made the video tape and distributed that, and people started to invite me to lecture,
and things slowly built up. But then Sophie and Matthew came to live with us for a
few years (daughter and son-in-law) after Nathan was born, and Matt said: “There’s
something wrong with attachment theory – it doesn’t account for fathers!”

You’ve lectured extensively on fathering and attachment, and in your lecture

notes you describe current research, which suggests that fathers may play a
different role than mothers in the socialisation of children. Can you explain?
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 16:17 27 September 2013

Researchers have found that children who excel in social situations as young adults,
had mothers who provided an enduring secure base and a positive model for intimate
relationships within the family, and fathers who had provided exciting play and
interactive challenges. There seem to be two separate attachment roles for two
separate but equally significant functions – one attachment role is to provide love
and security, and the other attachment role is to engage in exciting and challenging
experiences (see, e.g. Grossmann et al., 2002; NICHD Early Childcare Research
Network, 2004).
When I watched Matt with his son, I could see that there was something different
going on here. I knew that he was doing something different, that he had an insight, a
connection with the child, which was more involved. (My grandson was about
18 months old at the time.) It was the play that made a difference. It was always
interactive. It might be early morning, watching a bit of TV with the toddler on his
knee, watching children’s programmes together (never alone). They would talk about
what they were watching, rewind and see their favourite part again. He also read to
him. The effect of having a parent read to a child is very advantageous. It is an
unequivocal illustration of time and attention being paid only to the child. And the
child has this sense of “I’ve gotcha!” or “You’re mine, and this time is special”. The
child is in control for a bit. That time and attention is very important.
So my son-in-law was playful and engaging with my grandson. As Matt and I got
to thinking about this, we worked it out in about 10 minutes on the back of an enve-
lope. I drew up a diagram of our conversation and I said: “Do you think it looks like
that?”, and he said: “Yes, something like that”. I sent it to Howard Steele, and he sent
me the Grossmann paper. I read the abstract, and was so taken, that I emailed Karin
Grossmann and sent her the drawing. Based on her empirical findings with fathers
(Grossmann et al., 2002), she gave me some feedback and I made some changes.
Eventually I ended up with the diagram that I use in lectures showing dual primary
attachments to mothers and fathers (see Figure 1).
Whilst attachment theory acknowledges children’s desire for play and exploration,
Figure 1. Dual primary attachment figures proposed by Richard Bowlby. Source: Richard Bowlby’s personal lecture notes, 2006.

there isn’t much emphasis put on it. Attachment theory has focused on the quality of
the relationship necessary for a child to achieve a sense of safety under threatening
conditions. But is the attachment bond no more than evolution’s way of keeping chil-
dren safe from danger? Or is the bond evolution’s way of promoting exploration,
giving us the confidence to venture beyond known territories – the secure base being
more like a launch-pad for these activities? I believe that we also need to examine the
instinctive human need for discovery, enjoyment and sense of achievement and to
 Early Child Development and Care 27
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 16:17 27 September 2013

Figure 1. Dual primary attachment figures proposed by Richard Bowlby. Source: Richard
Bowlby’s personal lecture notes, 2006.

look at the emotional and social implications for children’s development when these
needs are not met.
I remember asking my father about the role of fathers in attachment theory, but he
didn’t have a well thought out opinion and finished the conversation by saying: “Well,
a child doesn’t need two mothers!” By the 1980s my father valued the role of fathers
much more, and he talked about the effect on boys of losing their fathers. His recog-
nition of fathers came late in his career, and I suspect his intense focus on mothers has
biased researchers and distorted cultural values.
Now supposing the significance of the relationship between children and fathers is
very much greater than that of just a secondary attachment figure. Supposing a father
was another primary attachment figure. In families where there are two people raising
children, one parent is the highest ranking attachment figure for providing an enduring
secure base and haven of safety in times of distress, and the other parent is the highest
ranking attachment figure for providing exploration and excitement when times are
favourable – different roles but equally significant. There will be varying degrees of
overlap between these two attachment roles, but each parent will usually provide
mostly one or the other type of attachment relationship. The roles may be influenced
by gender, but are not likely to be gender specific.
 28 L.A. Newland and D.D. Coyl

If this was the case then it would explain why fathers’ sensitive and appropriate
involvement with children would have as great a degree of positive impact in their
adult life as that of mothers. Conversely one could see why fathers’ emotional unavail-
ability, separation or loss could have a similar degree of negative impact as would the
emotional unavailability, separation or loss of mothers, but in different ways and for
different reasons.
Whether young or old we seem driven to explore and to seek new experiences and
there is a potent neurochemical reward when we do, but we need to feel sufficiently
safe doing so, or we’re too frightened to continue. To optimise our chances of being
successful we need two distinct systems in place: the first is to know there is a secure
base to return to when the activity ends or goes wrong, and the other is having a
trusted companion to show the way.
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 16:17 27 September 2013

Being seen as a “primary” attachment figure would change the importance we

place on fathers. It would allow us to re-evaluate the importance of a father’s role and
to recognise that his significance in his child’s history is equal to that of a mother’s.
Fathers would see themselves as having a crucial influence on their children’s long-
term social development, and their position as trusted play companions would, instead
of so often being ridiculed as juvenile and time wasting, be highly valued. So what
does all this mean? It doesn’t change what fathers have always been to children –
good, bad or indifferent, just like mothers; what it changes is the place of fathers
within attachment theory.
This is a bit controversial to say that children may have two primary attachment
figures, but if dads matter, then they matter. And what is the mechanism by which they
matter? I don’t have any empirical evidence myself, but I do have some comments
from my father, on video, about the role of fathers, later in his career. My father says:

When we feel an increase in the risk of danger, we are going to need to respond to that.
We will try to reduce the risk of danger, by our behaviour. We may be in a very risky
situation, and if the risk gets any greater, that will threaten us and trigger the attachment-
seeking response which can only be terminated by proximity to an attachment figure
either father as a protector or mother as a secure base.

What role do you see parental relationships (the relationship between mothers
and fathers) playing in children’s attachment formation? For example, how do
co-parenting and parental conflict play out in children’s attachment security?
In all of the data that I have come across, including the (National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development) NICHD data on parents’ report of marital harmony,
parental harmony seems to be a significant predictor of the outcomes of the child. There
is a very good report in Britain called “Breakdown Britain” which addresses this issue.
In that report, it’s noted that family conflict is related to a wide range of negative
outcomes for children, and parents in conflict-ridden relationships are less able to co-
parent well. In addition, if a child is exposed to parental disharmony, which results in
parental separation, the child’s emotional outcome is reduced (although they fare better
than if parents stay in a high-conflict marriage; Amato, 2006). If there is no marital
disharmony, and the relationship suddenly breaks up, apparently for no reason, their
outcomes are worse (Centre for Social Justice: Family Breakdown Working Group,
2006, p. 79). We see long-term effects on those children’s later marital relationships,
because you can’t predict (a breakup) and you can’t prepare for it. That report is based
in part on Booth and Amato’s work (e.g. Amato, Loomis, & Booth, 1995).
 Early Child Development and Care 29

What are your thoughts about the influence of culture on fathering and
attachment?
Well, certainly culture plays an important role. I believe that the dual attachment
model mainly applies in Western culture. I don’t think that it applies as often in
Middle Eastern and Far Eastern cultures. For instance I am told that children’s rough
and tumble play with fathers is a Western activity and I think this may prepare chil-
dren in some way for the culture of Western work practices which rely on individual
achievement and learning to trust a boss or colleague.
In Eastern cultures the focus is more on collectivism rather than individualism.
Different cultural values will play out in different socialisation practices. One example
of cultural influences on parenting and child outcomes is the Hikikomori phenomenon
in Japan. These are young men (and women) who are completely socially isolated
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 16:17 27 September 2013

young adults still living in their parents’ homes. In that case, children have been raised
in a culture where they expect things to be done within a group dynamic, but due to
the rapid westernisation of society they are suddenly expected to go out on their own
as an adult. Many cannot cope. We may be seeing more of this kind of antisocial
phenomena in other cultures, if we don’t address this issue of attachment, and the
balance between security and risk taking (exploration). We want them to be able to
function when they do leave home, in their work place, in their college, in their social
settings, in their peer groups and with their romantic partners. Inability to do this is a
huge disadvantage outside the home. It takes both a sense of security and willingness
to explore.

What do you think are the next steps to be taken in advancing attachment theory?
I believe that attachment theory will be advanced in at least four important ways:
greater dissemination of attachment information to parents and child-minders, the
inclusion of multiple risk factors when examining child emotional outcomes, more
through examination of the effects of non-parental care, and increased use of measures
which capture the complexity of father–child interactions.

Dissemination of attachment information

We must consider alternative ways of disseminating information regarding the impor-
tance of early attachments. The internet is one potential medium, also popular media,
parent education groups and public forums. The information has to get to parents and
child-minders (i.e. childcare providers), for example, through health care profession-
als. I’ve begun making a general interest DVD about secure attachment and the “key
person” in day care that I hope to put on the internet for free download worldwide.

Examination of multiple risk factors

We must start examining multiple risk factors for children. Insecure attachment is a
fairly wide-spread risk factor, 40–45% of children are classified as insecurely attached
in Great Britain, also in America. And then if you add impersonal childcare for eight
hours per day, five days per week, with care given by multiple staff members when
none of them have become attachment figures, then that’s a second risk factor. Then
if parental separation occurs, let’s say father has just left home, that’s a third risk
 30 L.A. Newland and D.D. Coyl

factor. These are all common and socially acceptable experiences, but now we have
three risk factors, all on the same emotional system, that is, the (child’s) attachment
system. Quite often, what people tend to blame is the most recent event, the bit that
you can see, that was the “last straw”. In this case, everybody blames the dad leaving,
when in actuality, it was the combination of factors, the effects of multiple (risk)
factors, but it was the last one that was the most obvious.

The effects of non-parental care

We have to seriously examine the effects of non-parental care from an attachment
perspective. In the UK we have these driving license points, and if you get more than
12 points you lose your license. Usually a significant speeding ticket is four points.
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 16:17 27 September 2013

Now if you take four points off your license because you’ve gotten a speeding ticket,
you’ve got eight points left. You’re still driving, but you’re in the danger zone. We
may be putting children who are receiving impersonal day care into that position
where they’ve gotten four points off their license already. They are still “driving”, still
functioning, but they are in the danger zone. If they have a rotation of different staff
coming in and out throughout their day, they are essentially in a strange situation for
eight hours per day, without access to an attachment figure, and they start disengaging.
They may come from well-functioning middle-class families, but they now have a risk
factor.
There is another model of childcare that is based on attachment theory. An
example would be the Soho Family Centre in London (see Bowlby, 2007). At the
Centre, child-minders (care providers) expect to develop a secure, secondary attach-
ment bond with each of the three small children they look after. Great care is taken
to maintain the children’s primary attachment bond to their primary attachment
figure whilst a secondary attachment relationship with the child-minder is actively
nurtured. First, the coordinator assesses the attachment dynamics of each family
before a (child’s) place at the Centre is agreed, and she will work out the individual
childcare plan that she considers to be in the best interests of the child, rather than of
the parent. The children are each looked after by only one child-minder throughout
the entire period that they attend the Centre (usually three or four years). The Centre
only permits a child-minder to care for one baby younger than 18 months, one
toddler 18 months to three years and one child over three years old. In addition the
child-minders are allowed to take on one child over the age of five after school –
often a child they had cared for as a toddler. The youngest age that infants are
accepted by the child-minders is six months old but the Centre prefers nine months
or older, so that infants may develop their primary attachment bond with their
parents.
When infants are first introduced to a child-minder, their primary attachment
figures are required to stay with them at the Centre for as long as it takes the infants
to get to know their particular child-minders. It usually takes several weeks for the
relationship to develop and for their surroundings to become sufficiently familiar that
the babies are not distressed when left. The baby gradually realises that they can take
comfort from their (new) carer and feel secure. The initial separations are for only a
few minutes and then are slowly increased, and even then the babies and toddlers are
in day care only part time if they are younger than 18 months old.
There are seven tables in the main room at which each child-minder and her three
children will sit together for lunch, as well as using it as a base throughout the day for
 Early Child Development and Care 31

play. The child-minders can often be seen carrying the youngest whilst the toddler
under three plays nearby, and the older child is engaged in more adventurous
activities. One practical arrangement to note is that two child-minders are paired with
one another, and the children of each one get to know the other child-minder quite
well. If a child has to have its nappy (diaper) changed in another room, the two
remaining children have a responsible person to go to, with whom they have a
confident and familiar relationship.
The child-minders and the coordinator are extremely careful to avoid letting the
relationship between the infant and the child-minders develop from a secondary
attachment to a primary attachment. It’s a balance. If it is observed that the baby
routinely does not want to separate from the child-minders at the end of the day, the
day care is temporarily discontinued so the baby can spend more time with mother and
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 16:17 27 September 2013

re-establish the primary attachment. From what I’ve observed and what I’ve been told,
the system of childcare provided by the Soho Family Centre is unique in the UK. The
Centre is an example of the intelligent application of attachment theory to the practical
and long-term provision of non-parental, out-of-home, centre-based, childcare – but
it’s not an easy or a cheap system to maintain! I am proud to be a patron of the Soho
Family Centre. There are other good options for families, such as family-childcare,
neighbour-care and other arrangements where the babies know and love the people
caring for them.

The father’s attachment role

We must push to really understand the father’s role in children’s emotional lives. We
can start by accurately measuring what it is that fathers do that makes the difference.
An excellent example is the Grossmann’s SCIP measure of sensitivity during exciting
and challenging father–child play (see Grossmann et al., 2002). We need to pursue
measures which capture the complexity of father–child interactions and fathers’
attachment role.

Notes on contributors
Lisa A. Newland is an associate professor of educational psychology in the Division of Coun-
seling and Psychology in Education at the University of South Dakota. She teaches courses in
child development, statistics, research methods, and child assessment. Her research interests
include parent–child relationships and developmental outcomes from infancy to adolescence,
fathering and co-parenting, and interactions between home and school settings.

Diana D. Coyl is an associate professor of child development in the College of Behavioral and
Social Sciences at California State University at Chico. She teaches courses in school-age and
adolescent development, family relations, research methods and statistics. Her research inter-
ests include attachment relationships across the lifespan, adolescent identity development,
couple relations and parent–child relationships.

References
Amato, P. (2006). Marital discord, divorce, and children’s well-being: Results from a 20-year
longitudinal study of two generations. In A. Clarke-Stewart & J.F. Dunn (Eds.), Families
count: Effects on child and adolescent development (pp. 179–202). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Amato, P., Loomis, L., & Booth, A. (1995, March). Parental divorce, marital conflict, and
offspring well-being during early adulthood. Social Forces, 73(3), 895–915.
 32 L.A. Newland and D.D. Coyl

Bowlby, R. (2004). Fifty years of attachment theory. In R. Bowlby (Ed.), Fifty years of
attachment theory: The Donald Winnicott memorial lecture (pp. 11–26). London: Karnac
Books.
Bowlby, R. (2007). Babies and toddlers in non-parental day care can avoid stress and anxiety
if they develop a lasting secondary attachment bond with one carer who is consistently
accessible to them. Attachment & Human Development, 9(4), 307–319.
Centre for Social Justice: Family Breakdown Working Group. (2006, December). The state of
the nation report: Fractured families. Retrieved June 15, from http://www.centreforso-
cialjustice.org.uk/client/downloads/BB_family_breakdown.pdf
Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K.E., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Kindler, H., Scheurerer-Englisch,
H., & Zimmermann, P. (2002). The uniqueness of the child–father attachment relation-
ship: Father’s sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal
study. Social Development, 11, 307–331.
NICHD (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) Early Childcare
Research Network. (2004). Father’s and mother’s parenting behavior and beliefs as
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 16:17 27 September 2013

predictors of child social adjustment in the transition to school. Journal of Family

Psychology, 18(4), 628–638.