Attachment Theory 2: Adult Relationships

Photo courtesy of Life Supports Counseling

As we examined in the first part of this series, attachment and its effects on our development during childhood are highly complex, but the personalities and behaviors we obtain through this initial process of connection only become apparent later on during adulthood. In fact, the relationships we maintain as adults are often directly influenced, or, at times, exact replicas, of that which we shared with our early parental figures (Huang 1). This is known as the continuity theory, or the idea that the very first bonds we form in life influence in their entirety both the emotional and physical expectations we carry into future relationships with partners or our children (Huang 1). Whether those expectations are met or not by the figure of our attachment decides the state of the relationship at hand; healthy or unhealthy.

This conclusion was first drawn by Mary Main, an American psychologist who studied adult attachment throughout the 80’s (Huang 2). Main interviewed various adults so as to gain a background for their childhood/relationship to their parents, how they viewed themselves versus how they viewed others, and how each individual assigned varying levels of value to the idea of a relationship (either between another adult or a child). Main, after a period of intense research and comparison, eventually settled on three primary groups of attachment styles in adults: Secure/Autonomous, Dismissive-Avoidant, and Preoccupied attachment (Huang 3). Secure individuals generally displayed an overall positive view of the individuals they were surrounded by, including themselves. They typically demonstrated confidence in both their ability to actively participate in a healthy relationship and in discerning between healthy and unhealthy matches with potential partners (Huang 3). Secure adults were highly in-tune with themselves and their individual needs, while simultaneously being capable of effectively responding to their partner or child’s signals. And, while autonomous individuals handled connections with ease and security, they often described themselves as being highly committed to the relationship in question, deeming it key to their overall happiness and sense of self (Huang 3). Being so adept at handling relationships meant the process of understanding past relationships also came rather naturally to said individuals, as most could easily recount and explain their previous endeavors into deep interpersonal connection rationally and with a great deal of clarity. Secure adults were the least likely to either sugarcoat or make excuses for their past partners, and almost always gained positive internal growth from even the worst relationships (Huang 3). Such relationships were also seemingly incapable of damaging secure individuals over a long period of time, as these adults were by far the most capable at analyzing past situations, isolating potential issues, and accepting reality (Huang 3). Autonomous individuals also usually hailed from loving parents, presenting as having had a positive and healthy upbringing. Dismissive-Avoidant adults differed from secure ones primarily in how they viewed others. While they maintained a positive outlook on themselves, they viewed those around them in a highly negative fashion, leading them to place their sense of self on a pedestal far above how they valued the feelings of others (Huang 3). While dismissive individuals were capable of maintaining relationships, a deep-seated fear that their partner (who they subconsciously looked down upon) could potentially hurt them, either by failing to reciprocate affection or ending the connection, generated a wedge between them; a considerable emotional gap secure relationships were completely unfamiliar with. In fact, most avoidant adults reported to be searching for sustainable independence in life as opposed to codependence, fearing themselves to be incapable of maintaining such a bond over a long period of time (Huang 3). Some would go as far as to say they viewed relationships as unnecessary or a waste of time, while others would claim they experienced low levels of stress or negative emotion while in a relationship due to a supposed emotional disconnect dismissive adults stated they had actively sought out. In general, though, avoidant adults presented as untrusting of other individuals, typically as a response to receiving low levels of affection from their parental figures early on in life (Huang 3). Lastly, preoccupied adults viewed others in a positive light while maintaining a deeply negative perception of themselves. They viewed others as beings superior to themselves, and demonstrated the highest levels of insecurities amongst the study’s participants (Huang 3). While doubting their performance in the relationship in question, preoccupied individuals thought of their partner as far more capable at maintaining the relationship, and reported feeling as if they were solely responsible for worsening the connection, even if the relationship was generally healthy (Huang 3). To counter this, preoccupied adults would often seek out constant positive reinforcement from their attachment figure, and described needing heightened levels of both physical and emotional intimacy in order to maintain a sense of security within the relationship. Typically, such adults reported being highly dependent on their parents, while simultaneously stating they felt they had disappointed them or couldn’t consistently meet their standards (Huang 3).

Main’s initial study encompassed only general attraction in adults, both between other adults as well as with children, eventually leading her to pursue a second study in 1985 that studied solely romantic attraction. As with her first study, Main concluded that adults generally fell into three groups of romantic attachment; secure, avoidant, and ambivalent (Huang 4). Secure lovers (who most closely resemble the secure/autonomous general attachment group), could consistently form and maintain healthy and fulfilling romantic relationships with other adults. They, additionally, were capable of both acknowledging and handling faults in their partner effectively, and experienced the longest and most open relationships of the three groups. Like autonomous adults, secure lovers also had developed healthy relationships with their parents growing up (Huang 4). Avoidant adults tended to avoid instances of extreme emotion, both positive and negative. Typically, this meant they would shut down their partner’s advances when trying to increase intimacy, as well as avoiding fights in fear of damaging their emotional wellbeing. On the other end of the spectrum, avoidant lovers were also highly jealous, and had difficulty describing or realizing in full their exact feelings towards their partner (Huang 4). Overall, such adults were the most skeptical in regards to the concept of love as well as their ability to maintain loving relationships, either claiming love in its entirety was a delusion or that they themselves were incapable of forming such connections. As opposed to secure lovers, those that presented as avoidant reported having distant relationships with their parents, specifically their mothers (Huang 4). Ambivalent individuals embodied traits from both the secure and avoidant groups, often bringing each sides’ respective emotions to the extreme. While they were reported to have little difficulty finding and engaging in highly intense/intimate relationships, those in the ambivalent group were also able to maintain said relationships for the shortest span of time, even less than relationships in which avoidant lovers served as participants (Huang 4). Ambivalent adults all presented with a desire for intimacy that bordered on obsession, and they typically entered romantic relationships with powerful emotion and drive. Over time, though, their feelings were bound to die out, and ambivalent relationships faced an expiration date based entirely off of the waning interest of its participants (Huang 4). While in the intense stages of their relationship, ambivalent lovers were highly affectionate and jealous, but would almost always distance themselves from their partner as things became more serious between them. Like avoidant lovers, ambivalent adults reported having poor relationships with their parental figures (Huang 4).

Main’s next point of research pertained to the types of adults that entered relationships with one another, specifically what they were most attracted to in a partner. Generally, Main discovered the different types of general attachment styles tended to attract one another. Secure adults most often paired up with other secure adults, while avoidant adults typically formed relationships with other avoidant individuals (Huang 5). The only exception, however, was found in anxious-avoidant adults, who rarely attracted one another, while ambivalent lovers paired up at random. Interestingly enough, the next most common pairing was found on completely opposite ends of the attachment spectrum, as secure adults (when unable to form a relationship with another secure adult) were most likely to end up with anxious-avoidant lovers. The anxious partner would typically rely on the secure individual emotionally, and such relationships often worked due to the secure adult’s ability to read their partner and instill confidence within the two of them (Huang 5). Lastly, Main found that secure adults reported having the most satisfying and fulfilling relationships, while, conversely, avoidant adults stated the exact opposite.

However, while Main’s research greatly advanced the field of attachment theory, it must be remembered that the emotions we as humans feel towards others are context-specific, and don’t always fall within the boundaries her attachment groups set for us. When dealing with friends, family, lovers, and our children, our attachment style differs greatly, as our emotional upbringings are far too complex to produce static responsiveness to affection from person to person (Huang 6). And, while our varied styles of attachment each find their roots in the initial bond we formed with our primary caretaker, our general attachment group is subject to change over time. In a separate study conducted in 1995, a duo of psychologists (Baldwin and Fehr) interviewed a group of adults in order to determine how common shifts in attachment styles really were (Huang 7). The two discovered that apporiximatley 70% of adults maintained a static attachment style throughout their lives, while roughly 30% described one or multiple distinct changes in relation to their attachment throughout their lives. Among those interviewed, anxious and ambivalent adults were the most likely to experience such shifts in their style of attachment (Huang 7). Mirroring these results, Mary Ainsworth (the founder of the Strange Situations experiment detailed in the first part of this series) returned to interview the children originally tested, determining whether their primary style of attachment had remained the same since their initial placement during the 1978 study. Like Baldwin and Fehr predicted, the adults hailing from the Strange Situations study matched up entirely with the control group studied in the 90s’, with 72% remaining consistent in relation to their behaviour as infants and the other 28% reporting a significant change (Huang 7). Of the 28% who did alter their attachment style sometime during their past, almost all of them described such a change occurring either directly or soon after a traumatizing experience, which supposedly reshaped their worldview and ability to attach to others forever.

As demonstrated by the continuity theory, the foundation by which we grow as individuals is determined in our earliest years of life. And, while each and everyones’ eventual style of attachment is unique, distinct in their complexity, all human beings, within their deepest levels of subconsciousness, are searching for a connection. We begin our lives in pursuit of one, as it is integral to our survival, and our initial experiences with love shape our development in how we handle relationships from then on. While good and bad experiences produce either healthy or maladjusted individuals, we all share a universal origin, that of reaching out for and embracing attachment.

Works Cited

Huang, S (2020, Nov 03). Attachment styles. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/attachment-styles.html

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baldwin, M.W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attachment style ratings. Personal Relationships, 2, 247-261.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment Styles Among Young Adults: A Test of a Four-Category Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Volume I. Attachment. London: Hogarth Press.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (p. 46–76). The Guilford Press.

Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 267–283.

Caron, A., Lafontaine, M., Bureau, J., Levesque, C., and Johnson, S.M. (2012). Comparisons of Close Relationships: An Evaluation of Relationship Quality and Patterns of Attachment to Parents, Friends, and Romantic Partners in Young Adults. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 44(4), 245-256.

George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1984). The Adult Attachment Interview. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley.

Harlow, H. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13, 573-685.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1-2), 66-104.

Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment pattern. In T. B. Brazelton & M. W. Yogman (Eds.), Affective development in infancy. Ablex Publishing.

Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 71(3), 684-689.