Anxious or avoidant: how attachment affects relationships
Attachment theory has become one of the main languages of modern relationships. Social media users determine from short videos why a partner doesn't respond to messages, moves away after getting close, or constantly demands confirmation of feelings. However, the popular division of people into four types significantly simplifies the results of scientific research. What theory can really tell you about human behavior, whether it is possible to change the type of attachment, and why psychological labels sometimes do more harm than good is in the Izvestia article.
Attachment to labels
An unanswered message today is often attributed not to busyness or lack of interest, but to an "avoidant type of attachment." The desire to discuss relationships is called a manifestation of an anxious type, and a sharp alternation of rapprochement and distance is called an anxious-avoidant one. In recent years, these concepts have gone far beyond the confines of psychology classrooms: they are used in dating apps, podcasts, songs, TV series, and short videos.
The popularity of the theory is easy to explain. It offers a clear vocabulary for experiences that were previously difficult to name, and turns a complicated relationship story into a recognizable pattern. The person gets an explanation for why they choose emotionally unavailable partners again, worries about a slight change in tone, or loses interest as soon as the relationship becomes serious.
This system fits particularly well into the format of social networks. Four types can be placed on one card, and the partner's behavior can be analyzed in a video lasting less than a minute. At the same time, a complex psychological concept inevitably loses its reservations and turns into a universal answer.
In a study of online self-help and relationship advice, sociologist Justine Topham noted that short platforms accelerate the spread of psychotherapeutic vocabulary, but at the same time reduce difficult situations to categorical formulas. As a result, the idea of a "healthy relationship" begins to be perceived as a single standard, and almost any difficulty becomes a problem that a person must find in himself and fix.
At the same time, it would be wrong to consider psychological content on social networks to be unambiguously harmful. The authors of the JMIR Infodemiology study, based on interviews with young TikTok users, found that such publications can reduce stigma, help people discuss their condition with loved ones, and encourage them to seek professional help. The participants, however, simultaneously talked about misinformation, questionable advice, and difficulties evaluating the qualifications of the authors.
From cradle to dating
Attachment theory did not appear as a way to evaluate potential partners. Its foundations were developed in the middle of the 20th century by the British psychiatrist John Bowlby, who studied the relationship of a child with the main adult caring for him. He considered the desire for intimacy as an innate security system: in a threatening situation, a child looks for a person who can protect and reassure him.
Later, psychologist Mary Ainsworth developed the "Unfamiliar Situation" procedure, during which researchers observed how young children reacted to their mother's departure and return. This is how descriptions of safe, anxiety-ambivalent, and avoidant models appeared. The category of disorganized attachment was added later by other researchers.
Psychologists Cindy Hazan and Philip Shaver transferred these ideas to adult romantic love in 1987. And the now well—known four-part model - safe, anxious, avoidant—rejecting and anxious-avoiding types - was proposed by psychologist Kim Bartholomew in the early 1990s. Therefore, the widespread claim that it was Bowlby who divided adults into four types is historically incorrect.
In the popular view, a securely attached person is able to simultaneously maintain intimacy and maintain independence. With an anxious model, he is more afraid of rejection, seeks confirmation of feelings, and reacts especially acutely to distance. In the avoidant-rejecting model, a person relies on independence and can move away when emotional openness is expected of him. The anxiety-avoidance model combines the desire for intimacy with the fear of rejection or self-harm.
These descriptions may be recognizable, but they do not equal a diagnosis and do not predict every human action. Moreover, modern science calls into question the very idea of four clearly separated groups.
Not four psychological boxes
Research on adult attachment is increasingly using two continuous characteristics rather than types. The first is attachment anxiety, that is, the fear of being rejected or abandoned. The second is the avoidance of attachment, which is associated with the discomfort of emotional intimacy, dependence, and the need to open up to another person.
With low rates of anxiety and avoidance, the model is conventionally called safe. High anxiety with low avoidance resembles an anxious type, low anxiety with high avoidance is avoidantly rejecting, and a combination of high indicators is alarmingly avoidant. But the boundaries between these states are drawn conditionally.
This was confirmed by R. Chris Fraley and his colleagues, who studied two samples of approximately 2.4 thousand adults. Their analysis showed that differences between people are better described by continuous scales, rather than belonging to separate categories. The result was preserved for both the general attitude to intimacy and attachment to parents, friends, and romantic partners. The authors of the paper, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, found the use of rigid categories insufficiently justified.
In other words, a person doesn't have to be "pure anxious" or "typical avoidant." He can bear the distance relatively calmly, but become more anxious in case of conflict. Another person is able to appreciate independence without feeling fear of intimacy. A short test that produces one final type does not show this complexity.
Nevertheless, there is a significant amount of research behind the theory. A meta-analysis of 132 studies has shown that increased anxiety and avoidance are associated with lower satisfaction with romantic relationships. The connection was found both for the person himself and for his partner, although the influence of his own indicators on his own assessment of the relationship was stronger.
However, this does not mean that insecure attachment automatically becomes the reason for separation. Most of these studies reveal statistical relationships rather than one-sided causation. Compatibility, living conditions, financial difficulties, health status, conflict resolution methods, violence, and many other factors also affect couple satisfaction.
Someone is anxious, someone is calm
One of the main errors of popular psychology is the idea that a person has a single type that manifests itself equally in all respects. In practice, people can safely trust friends, avoid frankness with their parents, and be acutely afraid of rejection from a romantic partner.
In a study involving 512 young adults, respondents assessed attachment to one parent, a partner, and several friends. The relationship between the relationship to a parent and friends was about 0.4, and between the relationship to a parent and a romantic partner was about 0.3. At the same time, most of the differences depended on a particular loved one.
The data obtained does not negate the general experience and stable expectations. A person accustomed to rejection can really expect it in advance in a new relationship. But the partner's behavior can enhance or, conversely, weaken this anxiety. Consistency, predictability, and willingness to respond create one experience, while disappearances, uncertainty, and constant distance shifting create another.
Therefore, it is useful to supplement the question "What type of attachment do I have?" with others: next to whom does anxiety arise, after what events do you want to distance yourself, and in what relationships is a person able to directly ask for support. This approach allows us to analyze not only the personality, but also the real interaction between people.
Childhood does not become a sentence.
Early relationships with close adults are really involved in forming expectations from other people. However, the formula "parents have determined the type for life" does not correspond to modern data.
In a review of longitudinal studies, psychologists R. Chris Fraley and Glenn Roisman noted that there is a link between early care and adult attachment, but it often turns out to be weak and uneven with different measurement methods. Childhood experience sets some of the initial conditions, but further development depends on friendship, romantic relationships, family environment, individual characteristics and subsequent life events.
Fraley, Omri Gillat, and Patrick Debeck tracked how attachment scores changed before and after 25 types of life events. About half of them were accompanied by immediate changes, but after many events, people gradually returned to the trajectory observed earlier. Sustained changes, on average, were associated with about a quarter of the events studied. The results of a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology show both the plasticity of attachment and the relative stability of habitual patterns.
Attachment also changes with age. In another study, researchers combined data from 628 people aged 13 to 72 years. Attachment anxiety decreased on average, especially in middle and old age, and avoidance gradually decreased throughout life. Having a romantic relationship was associated with lower rates of both types of insecurity.
However, the change usually does not happen instantly. Just realizing that a person is prone to anxiety or withdrawal from intimacy may not be enough. New expectations are formed through repeated experiences in which asking for support does not lead to humiliation, conflict can be discussed, and temporary distance does not mean the end of a relationship.
Is it possible to become safer
The practical value of attachment theory lies not in finding the culprit, but in the ability to see an automatic reaction before it determines behavior again. If there is a threat of a breakup, one person can repeatedly write to a partner and demand an immediate response. The other is to shut up, devalue the relationship, or disappear. Both strategies temporarily reduce internal tension, but at the same time they can increase conflict.
To begin with, it is useful to track not the label, but the sequence.: what happened, what threat the person saw, what he wanted and what he did after that. Then you can compare the reactions in different ways. If anxiety occurs only next to one partner, the reason may not be the constant "anxious type", but the unpredictability of a particular relationship.
The next step is to translate the interpretations into observable facts and requests. The phrase "you are an emotionally unavailable avoidant person" leaves almost no room for dialogue. The wording "when you stop responding after a conflict, I don't understand if our relationship is continuing; it's important for me to agree when we return to the conversation" more accurately describes the problem and a possible solution.
There is reason to believe that attachment can change during psychotherapy. A meta-analysis of 36 studies involving 3,158 patients showed that safer attachment before starting treatment was associated with better outcomes. Increased safety during therapy was also accompanied by improvements. At the same time, the authors pointed out the differences between the studies and did not claim that there is one universal method of changing attachment.
When an explanation turns into an excuse
Attachment theory stops helping when it is used for sentencing. Loss of interest after several meetings does not prove the presence of an avoidant type. The desire to receive responses to messages does not always indicate pathological anxiety. And abandoning a relationship can mean rejection, not a hidden fear of intimacy.
It is equally dangerous to justify cruelty, control, or systematic border violations with a psychological type. A difficult past experience can explain where a certain reaction came from, but it does not absolve a person of responsibility for his actions. Theory should also not be a substitute for assessing violence, mental disorders, or partner incompatibility.
Adult attachment style is not a psychiatric diagnosis. It is important to distinguish it from reactive attachment disorder and disinhibited social interaction disorder. According to the classification of the World Health Organization, these are separate childhood disorders associated with extremely inadequate care and starting before the age of five.
The risk of oversimplification is especially noticeable on social media. In 2025, researchers analyzed 1,000 short videos from more than 16 countries on 26 mental health topics. They attributed 6.3% of the videos to materials containing deliberate misinformation, and 15.7% to publications with false information without established intent. The authors of the work in the Journal of Medical Internet Research separately drew attention to the inaccurate use of the terms "gaslighting", "boundaries" and "toxic relationships". The sample was not random and does not allow transferring percentages to the entire TikTok, however, it shows why the popularity of the video cannot be considered a confirmation of its scientific validity.
Attachment theory is not useful as a psychological passport or as a way to find a definitive explanation for any action. It provides a map of recurring reactions to intimacy, distance, and the threat of rejection. But the card does not replace a real person, the history of a specific relationship, and the willingness of both sides to change their behavior.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
