Hooked on a feeling: How ‘attachment styles’ may help us understand our relationships with others
Are our romantic relationships influenced by those with parents and caregivers? Kristian explores how insights into our attachment style can contribute to more fulfilling relationships.
Growing up, my mother would often caution me that any woman I tried to date would judge me based on my relationship with her. Of course, as a child, she would say this to compel me to comply with her wishes, but now, as an adult, I see how those words ring true. Oftentimes, we may look at the relationship between our romantic partner and their parents to gain insights into what our own relationship dynamic might be. Some common adages hint at how formative relationships can influence the present. You may be familiar with: “You always marry someone like your parents”, or “Hurt people, hurt people”. But what do these sayings mean? Why do they often feel so true?
The parallel between the relationships we have with parental figures and the ones we go on to develop in adulthood is something that psychologists have observed for many years. Freud famously coined his “Oedipus complex” to describe the confusing parallels between familial and romantic relationships. By the mid-1900s, another psychologist named John Bowlby would add to our understanding by describing what he called “attachment theory” to help further explain the phenomenon. Later psychologists, including Mary Ainsworth, Mary Main, and Judith Solomon, would contribute to the field by creating a coding system to describe each attachment style. Today, using attachment theory, many have been able to identify and describe their ‘attachment style’ or the way in which they relate to other people. The insights derived from this can help people better understand themselves and their relationships with others, especially when used in conjunction with therapy from a licensed professional.
Attachment styles
The attachment styles are broken down into four categories: (1) secure, (2) preoccupied/anxious, (3) dismissive/avoidant, and (4) fearful/disorganised. It is believed that each attachment style is formed early in life and is largely the product of our relationships with our parents or caregivers.
Image credit: Unsplash
Secure and fearful attachment styles
“using attachment theory, many have been able to identify and describe their ‘attachment style’ or the way in which they relate to other people. The insights derived from this can help people better understand themselves and their relationships with others”
Initially identified by Ainsworth, the ‘secure’ attachment style was categorised as an infant displaying distress when separated from a primary caregiver, and pleasure upon their reunion. Children with a secure attachment style develop a strong sense of self-worth because their value was affirmed by their primary caregiver consistently throughout their upbringing. By contrast, those with the ‘fearful’ attachment style, first classified by Main and Solomon, may have grown up in an environment where they often experienced alarm when with a caregiver. This could be for a number of reasons including abuse, family violence, or that a caregiver’s own unresolved trauma leads to behaviours that frighten children. This attachment style drives a child to seek out support from a caregiver who they simultaneously love and fear—two things that are seldom compatible with one another.
The differences in these attachment styles are illustrative of how differences in one’s upbringing can have profound effects on one’s relationships with others. In the context of romantic relationships, someone with a secure attachment style might feel comfortable making the first move in the early stages of the relationship because they are more self-assured and direct. By contrast, someone with a fearful attachment style might struggle to assert themselves out of fear of reprisal, and may self-sabotage and isolate themselves from others. What’s more, in some circumstances they may seek out partners who affirm their feelings of worthlessness, replicating the disorienting feelings they had as a child.
Anxious and avoidant attachment styles
In addition to the secure attachment style, Ainsworth also identified two insecure styles which she described as ‘insecure-anxious’ and ‘insecure-avoidant’ (anxious and avoidant for short). An avoidant attachment style was characterised by infants masking their distress by focusing on other things such as toys. An anxious attachment style was characterised by infants showing persistent distress or anger when their caregiver was unavailable.
There are further contrasts between these two insecure attachment styles. People with an anxious attachment style are highly motivated to achieve the goal of felt security, while those with an avoidant attachment style have reduced security-seeking behaviours—this comes from experiencing significant neglect or rejection when seeking proximity to others. Put another way, people with anxious attachment styles exhibit a negative view of the self, but a positive view of others. And people with avoidant attachment styles have a negative view of others, but a positive view of the self.
“The differences in these attachment styles are illustrative of how differences in one’s upbringing can have profound effects on one’s relationships with others”
In stark contrast to both secure and fearful styles, which are on opposite extremes of the attachment style spectrum, anxious and avoidant styles fall in the middle. As a result, the way these attachment styles present in relationships can seem more subtle. For instance, while the fearfully attached person struggles to move decisively toward their romantic goal, the insecure-anxious person does so wholeheartedly because they are seeking someone to feel more complete. Further, while the securely attached person may be willing to trust people and open themselves up emotionally, the insecure-avoidant person would rather separate themselves from others altogether, minimising the chance of being neglected once again.
Image credit: Unsplash
Conclusion
Each of the four attachment styles is born from the interactions we have with our primary caregivers early in life and is reinforced by repeated exposure to those experiences. But that doesn’t mean that we are trapped in these categories. Some psychologists have theorised that the continuity and stability of our respective styles can fluctuate over time. For instance, if someone who was securely attached to their parents in childhood repeatedly experiences examples of neglect in adulthood, they might develop an avoidant attachment style. Or if someone with an anxious attachment style is regularly reassured by a partner or other, they may begin to understand that they do not need to be anxious and afraid when they are left alone. This understanding of fluctuating attachment styles helps to explain common experiences of maturing into having healthier relationships with others (i.e. secure attachments). At the same time, it demonstrates the equally common experience of one becoming jaded or traumatised by experiences throughout life (i.e. avoidant or fearful attachment styles).
It is worth noting some important criticisms of attachment theory. One common criticism is that attachment theory is too narrow in its understanding of people and doesn’t leave room to consider a person’s nature, rather than just their nurture. What's more, other psychiatrists have further criticised attachment theory, asserting that myriad other social and behavioural factors could be at play in terms of how someone forms attachments. All this goes to show that, although attachment theory can be a powerful tool to help people better understand themselves and their relationships with others, it should not be considered in a vacuum.
Regardless of the criticisms, if indeed many of us will marry or become romantically involved with people similar to our caregivers, as the expression suggests, some may find comfort in the fact that this isn’t set in stone. For those who grew up feeling supported and nurtured by their primary caregivers, it may be a positive thing for them to have romantic relationships with people with similar characteristics. However, for those who grew up in environments where they developed one of the three insecure attachment styles, it may not be positive for them to seek partners who mirror their dynamics with their primary caregiver. Fortunately, by better understanding how we as individuals fit into our own confusing mess of mirrored relationships, and with the help of professionals and strong emotional support systems, we can learn from past relationships and grow into more secure ones in the future.