#fearful-avoidant attachment

(This post is largely an edited copy-paste of the Wikipedia entry “Attachment in Adults”.)

The Adult Attachment Styles

Four main styles of attachment have been identified in adults:

Secure

Anxious-Preoccupied

Dismissive-Avoidant

Fearful-Avoidant

The Secure Attachment Style

Secure patterns of attachment behaviour are associated with a disposition to have a positive view of both self and others (i.e. a positive view of both one’s self and one’s potential figures of attachment). [For this reason, in relation to personality traits, the secure attachment style has an association both with levels of Agreeableness that are moderate or slightly higher than moderate, and with levels of Neuroticism that are not overly high.]

Securely attached adults tend to agree with the following statements:

It is relatively easy for me to become emotionally close to others.

I am comfortable depending on others and having others depend on me.

I don't worry about being alone or others not accepting me.

This style of attachment usually results from a history of warm and responsive interactions with attachment figures. Securely attached adults tend to have positive views of themselves, their attachments, and their relationships. They often report greater satisfaction and adjustment in their relationships than adults with other attachment styles. Securely attached adults feel comfortable both with intimacy and with independence.

During development, a secure attachment style and adaptive functioning are facilitated by caregivers who are emotionally available and appropriately responsive to their children’s attachment behaviours, as well as capable of regulating their own positive and negative emotions.

The Insecure Attachment Styles

In general, studies have shown that individuals with an insecure attachment style may be more vulnerable to mental health problems such as depression and anxiety disorders, in addition to having more difficulty with developing healthy attachments in adulthood.

Anxious-Preoccupied

Anxious-preoccupied patterns of attachment behaviour are associated with the disposition to have a negative view of self and a positive view of others (i.e. a positive view of potential figures of attachment). [For this reason, in relation to personality traits, the anxious-preoccupied attachment style has an association both with high levels of Neuroticism and with moderate-high levels of Agreeableness.]

Adults with the anxious-preoccupied attachment style tend to agree with the following statements:

I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.

I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don't value me as much as I value them.

Adults with this style of attachment tend to seek high levels of intimacy, approval, and responsiveness from their attachment figure. They sometimes value intimacy to such an extent that they become overly dependent on the attachment figure. Compared to adults who are securely attached, adults who have an anxious-preoccupied attachment style tend to have less positive views about themselves. They may feel a sense of anxiousness that only recedes when in contact with the attachment figure. They often doubt their worth as an individual and blame themselves for the attachment figure's lack of responsiveness.

Adults who have an anxious-preoccupied style of attachment may exhibit high levels of emotional expressiveness, emotional dysregulation, worry, and impulsiveness in their relationships.

Dismissive-Avoidant

Dismissive-avoidant patterns of attachment behaviour are associated with the disposition to have a positive view of self and a negative view of others (i.e. a negative view of potential figures of attachment). [For this reason, in relation to personality traits, the dismissive-avoidant attachment style has an association with low levels of Agreeableness and levels of Neuroticism that are not overly high (excluding the facet of anger/irritability).]

Adults with this dismissive style of avoidant attachment tend to agree with the following statements:

I am comfortable without close emotional relationships.

It is important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient.

I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me.

Adults with this attachment style desire a high level of independence. The desire for independence often appears as an attempt to avoid attachment altogether. They view themselves as self-sufficient and invulnerable to feelings associated with being closely attached to others. They often deny needing close relationships. Some may even view close relationships as relatively unimportant. They seek less intimacy with attachment figures, who they often view less positively than they view themselves. Investigators commonly note the defensive character of this attachment style. Adults with a dismissive-avoidant attachment style tend to suppress and hide their feelings, and they tend to deal with rejection by distancing themselves from the sources of rejection (e.g. their attachments or relationships).

The dismissive style of avoidant attachment is by far the most common attachment style among those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Fearful-Avoidant

Fearful-avoidant patterns of attachment behaviour are associated with the disposition to be unstable or fluctuating in one’s view of self and others. [In relation to personality traits, the fearful-avoidant attachment style has an association with both high levels of Neuroticism and low levels of Agreeableness.]

Adults with significant losses or other trauma, such as sexual abuse in childhood or adolescence, appear to be more likely to develop this fearful style of avoidant attachment. Adults with this style of attachment tend to agree with the following statements:

I am somewhat uncomfortable getting close to others.

I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to completely trust others, or to depend on them.

I sometimes worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to other people.

They tend to feel uncomfortable with emotional closeness and with attempts by others to establish such intimacy. This is despite the fact that, when they are not currently in a context of emotional closeness, they tend to pursue relationships that are characterised by such closeness (e.g. romantic relationships). The mixed feelings of the fearful-avoidant style tend to be combined with (sometimes unconscious) negative views about one’s self and one’s attachment figures, or with views of attachment figures that fluctuate between positive and negative. Those who have a fearful-avoidant attachment style commonly view themselves as unworthy of responsiveness from their attachment figures, but also tend not to trust the intentions of their attachment figures. Similar to the dismissive style of avoidant attachment, adults with the fearful style tend to seek less intimacy from attachment figures (at least in the context of an existing relationship) and frequently suppress and/or deny their feelings. Because of this, they can be uncomfortable expressing genuine affection.

While it can seem as though many individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder have the anxious-preoccupied attachment style, the fearful style of avoidant attachment is by far the most common attachment style among individuals with this personality disorder.

Intimacy and Styles of Attachment

Attachment theory has always recognised the importance of intimacy. Bowlby writes:

“Attachment theory regards the propensity to make intimate emotional bonds to particular individuals as a basic component of human nature, already present in germinal form in the neonate and continuing through adult life into old age.” (Bowlby, 1988, pp. 120–121)

The desire for intimacy has biological roots and, in the great majority of people, persists from birth until death. The desire for intimacy also has important implications for attachment. Relationships that frequently satisfy the desire for intimacy tend to cause more secure attachments. Relationships that rarely satisfy the desire for intimacy tend to cause less secure attachments.

Collins and Feeney have examined the relationship between attachment and intimacy in detail. In the context of a relationship, or attachment, they define intimacy as resulting from a special set of alternating interactions in which:

(A) One person discloses something important about herself to the other person (her attachment figure).

(B) Her attachment figure responds to her self-disclosure in a way that makes her feel validated, understood, and cared for.

Such interactions, which undergird intimacy, usually involve verbal self-disclosure, but can also involve non-verbal forms of self-expression such as touching, hugging, kissing, and sexual behaviour.

From this perspective, intimacy requires the following:

Willingness to disclose one's true thoughts, feelings, wishes, and fears

Willingness to rely on an attachment figure for care and emotional support

Willingness to engage in physical intimacy in the case of romantic or potential romantic partners

Accordingly, Collins and Feeney reviewed a number of studies that looked at how each attachment style relates to the willingness to self-disclose, the willingness to rely on partners, and the willingness to engage in physical intimacy. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they concluded that the secure attachment style is generally related to more self-disclosure, more reliance on partners, and more physical intimacy than the other attachment styles. However, they also noted that the amount of intimacy in a relationship can vary due to personality variables and situational circumstances, and suggested that each attachment style might function, in its particular characteristic way, to adapt an individual to the context of intimacy in which she happens to live.

Mashek and Sherman reported some findings on relationships between attachment styles and desiring less emotional closeness with partners. On one hand, these findings are predictable: People who have the fearful-avoidant and anxious-preoccupied attachment styles typically want greater emotional closeness with their partners (under threat of anxiety), and people who have the dismissive–avoidant attachment style typically want less emotional closeness with their partners. On the other hand, the relatively large numbers of people who admit to wanting less emotional closeness with their partners (rising to 57%, in some studies) far outnumbers the people who have the dismissive-avoidant attachment style. This suggests that people who have some other attachment style (secure, anxious–preoccupied, or fearful-avoidant) sometimes seek less emotional closeness with their partners, possibly as a result of situational factors. In short, individual differences in the desire for less emotional closeness with partners are not solely accounted for by individual differences in attachment style.

***

General Remarks about Adult Attachment Theory

Mary Ainsworth and John Bowlby founded modern attachment theory on studies of children and their caregivers. Obviously, relationships between adults differ in many ways from relationships between children and caregivers. And adult attachment theory does not presume that these two kinds of relationships are identical. Rather, it presumes that the core principles of attachment theory apply both to child-caregiver relationships and to adult relationships.

Investigators’ descriptions of the core principles of adult attachment theory vary quite a bit, at least on a superficial level. For example, Fraley and Shaver describe the “central propositions" of attachment in adults as follows:

The emotional and behavioural dynamics of infant-caregiver relationships and adult relationships are governed by the same biological system.

The kinds of individual differences observed in infant-caregiver relationships are similar to the ones observed in various close adult relationships.

Individual differences in adult attachment behaviour are reflections of the expectations and beliefs people have formed about themselves and their close relationships on the basis of their attachment histories; these “working models” are relatively stable and, as such, may be reflections of early caregiving experiences.

Romantic love, as commonly conceived, involves the interplay of attachment, caregiving, and sex.

Compare this with the five “core propositions” of attachment theory as listed by Rholes and Simpson:

Although the basic impetus for the formation of attachment relationships is provided by biological factors, the bonds that children form with their caregivers are shaped by interpersonal experience.

Experiences in earlier relationships create internal working models and attachment styles that systematically affect attachment relationships.

The attachment orientations of adult caregivers influence the attachment bond their children have with them.

Working models and attachment orientations are relatively stable over time, but they are not impervious to change.

Some forms of psychological maladjustment and clinical disorders are attributable, in part, to the effects of insecure working models and attachment styles.

The above lists clearly reflect the differing theoretical interests of the investigators who created them. However, a closer look reveals a number of shared themes. In particular, they share the following sentiments about adult attachment:

People are biologically driven to form attachments with others, but the process of forming attachments is influenced by learning experiences.

Individuals form different kinds of attachments depending on the expectations and beliefs they have about their relationships. These expectations and beliefs constitute internal “working models” that function to guide those individuals’ relationship behaviours.

In adults, these internal “working models” are relatively stable across the lifespan, even though they can be influenced by experience.

Differences among individuals in their attachment styles contribute (both positively and negatively) to individual differences in both mental health and the quality of individuals’ relationships with others.

Regarding the core principles of adult attachment theory, these shared themes are certainly not exhaustive. The key insight of the field, however, is simply that the same basic principles of attachment apply to close relationships throughout the lifespan.

Ever wonder why you seem to be in the same kinds of relationships all the time? By which I mean, they all kind of have the same or similar problems. Or have you ever struggled to make connections with people for fear of seeming too needy? Maybe you struggle to make connections because people think you’re too closed off. Maybe you don’t trust easily.

But, okay, what’s something that doesn’t seem generic, but can really make you believe in attachment styles if you’re a little harder to convince?

Have you ever used this phrase and meant it? Nobody ever cares as much as I (you) do. Or, no one gives as much as they get.

In either one, that could be true, but before you condemn someone for a lack of caring, ask yourself this: have you ever actually let someone else take care of you? Have you ever let someone see your emotional pain and take care of you, or do you tend to brush it aside and prefer to just keep helping others?

Okay so if you still don’t believe me, I’d say keep reading anyway, because it could help with people you are in a relationship with, but it’s not like I’ll know so, you do you.

Anyway, an attachment style is basically something we learn as babies (from 0-2 years, I believe, but I’m not 100% sure without looking it up) depending on how our needs were met by our caregivers we could end up with one of four different attachment styles. The two main ones being a secure attachment style and an insecure attachment style.

A secure attachment style is fostered by parents/caregivers that are able to consistently meet the child’s needs, and so the child learns that they can trust their caregiver, and use them as a base for which they explore the world.

Don’t understand what that means? It’s cool, I didn’t either.

My mom actually works in a children’s shelter, and actually showed me some studies on this as she knew I developed an interest in it. In one study that they specifically did at her job, they had a group of moms and their children playing in a room. After a while, they asked the moms to leave for one minute, and then to come back, but to stay behind the line they put near the door. What they found were a few different responses by the babies. One was crying nonstop and could not be comforted and immediately went to their mother when they saw she came back. Another had mixed signals they were giving as if they weren’t sure whether to go back to their mother or to stay where they were, but they were also showing distress at their mother not being present when she was gone. The last baby response they got was one child who did not cry at all when their mother left, just kept playing, and when she came back, they only acknowledged that she was there by turning around to see them and then turning back around to continue playing.

This by no means meant that they each already had a specific attachment style. The experiment was only meant to demonstrate the different ways they can react, not to diagnose, and so the experiment was only conducted by a few people for a short period of time.

However each baby did demonstrate a possible attachment style, so from there well go into the three insecure attachment styles, and what it means for the baby to consider the caregiver as a base from which to explore the world.

Insecure attachment styles:

Anxious attachment: also know as the love addict. Can be considered clingy by most people. Craves attachment, and does not have the ability to self-sooth very often. Self-sacrificing. Has difficulty listening to boundaries. Uses activating strategies when they feel someone pulling away from them to maintain the connection. Is better in the honeymoon phase of relationships normally, but has difficulty settling in a relationship.

Fearful-avoidant: come here, go away is a common phrase used to describe them. (May or may not be called disorganized attachment style, but the people I’ve learned from had different thoughts about what it meant, so I’m using this one. Still, if anyone wants more than a condensed version send an ask and I’ll send the link to who I watch when I’m learning about it) A combination of the anxious and dismissive attachment styles. Wants connection, but doesn’t trust it. Tends to be the more caregiver kind of friend. Does not do well talking about feelings, but is better at talking about them than the dismissive avoidant. Has difficulty setting boundaries for themselves. Will display more of the opposite attachment style of the person they’re dating. If anxious and fearful avoidant, they will show more dismissive avoidant characteristics. Can self-sooth relatively easily. Self-sacrificing, people pleasers. Is better at the beginning of a relationship, during the honeymoon phase, and has difficulty in setting into a relationship past that. Can sometimes do ‘tests’ on people to determine whether or not to trust them. Uses strategies to avoid or activate connections with people, depending on what attachment style they’re with.

Dismissive-avoidant: does not actively want or pursue connections. Does not trust other people to meet their needs. Does not normally display self-sacrificing habits. Tends to avoid talking about feelings(for example, if you asked how are you feeling right now, instead of answering, they might go into how their day went, or talk about their thoughts.) is good at setting boundaries, though not always by actually verbalizing them. Settles into relationships easier than the other two insecure attachment styles, preferring the consistency of a relationship that’s well past its honeymoon phase, to the actual honeymoon phase itself.

The funny thing about the entire experiment was the idea that the baby who didn’t respond at all to the mother leaving was actually the most well behaved. Not to say they weren’t, a lot of babies are incredibly smart, and depending on the age, could have learned object permanence already. (which, for those of you like me that didn’t know, just means they learned that just because you can’t see something, doesn’t mean it’s stopped existing) but the fact that we don’t know for sure doesn’t mean anything. The idea that the well-behaved baby didn’t get stressed at the mother's absence because they were good, seems a little damaging to me. Babies should feel at least a little stressed (if they haven’t learned object permanence already) when their primary caregiver leaves. It means the baby trusts them, has bonded with them, and is afraid that the person who they know will meet their needs is gone. It shouldn’t be something we take so much pride in, unless we know it’s not caused by some kind of neglect on the caregivers part.

To be clear, an attachment style can also form in different circumstances as well, but typically the dismissive learns more self-soothing techniques at an early age from neglect on the caregiver's side. This could be as simple as letting the child cry themselves to sleep and not meeting their needs emotionally. Or it could be as severe as not meeting their physical needs. Regardless, even with the best intentions, when we are teaching the child self-soothing techniques by denying the emotional need they have, it creates an environment for a dismissive attachment style to form.

So what does using your caregiver as a base to explore the world mean? I’m glad you asked, cause, dear lord, I had no idea until it was explained better. Basically, a baby watches their caregivers, develops a sense of trust for them, and depending on the level of trust developed, will look to their caregiver as a guide for how they should go about exploring the unknown. In the early stages, this presents itself in needing to see how a caregiver interacts with another person before letting them close. If they see the parent trusts them, they will either feel comfortable letting the stranger close or possibly start crying the second they get near depending on if the parent is trusted to not cause pain. If they crawl away, you might see a baby glance back at their caregiver every once in a while, making sure it’s still okay. If the parent and baby share a certain level of trust, the baby will determine if it’s safe to explore on whether the caregiver looks worried or encouraging. If the trust is built in a way that they know the parent would never hurt them, they will base the decision on only their reaction, and even sometimes will stop exploring altogether just to go back and kind of touch base, before starting another exploration again.

We’re told breakups should end amiably that mature adults should be able to stay friends as easily as they change clothes. But as a fearful avoidant, I’ve learned the hard truth: some connections can’t be downgraded. Whenever I’ve offered friendship post-breakup believing that I’d make a better friend than girlfriend, my exes refused. Yet, they stayed close to others. But the common denominator…