A1

"Why are romantic relationships difficult?"

I am often of the opinion that we are composed of different people/aspects/personalities. Each facet, when at the forefront, is convinced it is the primary personality and does all it can to suppress the others. Looking at how the dominance of one Chakra over another can affect one's character and demeanor leads credence to this belief (and implores the quest to balance all chakras for a unified whole resulting in the experience of 'enthea' - completeness).

I believe this is why we become frustrated in Love. First, we may be perfectly in sync with a partner cuddling on the couch or in bed and not speaking (or with conversations following so easily that it feels we and our partner psychically know what each other feels and thinks). Then the moment we exit the couch or bedroom we are faced and must contend with one of our partner's other personalities, too often one that is overly analytical or contrarian (or who doesn't inherently share our values, ways or views), reverting our previously synchronized connected state.

Sometimes these other personalities have important roles to play, such as the forensic accountant 'general' obsessed with order and money - useful traits for financial wellbeing. Yet too often the appearances of said personalities come at inappropriate times, such as when things are calm and smooth sailing and the 'general's' attendance is not required - even disruptive. However, the 'general' is sure to find problems, even if it finds problems it has created by stirring up an otherwise calm climate. The problem here is that we can not criticize the appearance of the 'general', remember that at this point our partner believes the 'general' is their primary personality and can not remember the personality(s) previously exhibited/in charge. Any questioning of the general's place will be taken as a personal affront to the entirety of our partner's personage. A lose lose scenario.

The second way this causes problems in Love is when we ourselves switch personalities. One moment we are working with one set of parameters that determine our needs wants desires and requirements, and the next we find what had completely satisfied us (our station, perhaps our partner, etc.) no longer fits the bill, causing angst and problems for our partner!

We have heard of the inner child, a named personality inherent to all. There is the influence of the Medula Oblongata or the 'Reptilian brain' we also share. There is growing evidence of various parasites and our gut biome directly affecting personality and behavior. The Kahuna magicians the most powerful on Earth have a similar philosophy that coincidental mirrors Freud's levels of id, ego and superego (or in modern parlance subconscious, conscious and superconscious). Our Higher Selves that is spoken of in 12 step meetings, among authors espousing intuitive practice, the religious who ascribe it to Angels or Holy Spirit and again the Kahuna magicians, is another influential psychical force (though perhaps not necessarily a personality per se).

How often is it we find a partner where all the personalities match, or inherent mechanisms that lubricate the disjointed personalities are in place?

This of course says nothing of naturally maturing, changing or otherwise 'growing apart'.

(Other effects can be read about in 'Alt Research' section (D1) Drafts, Ramblings, Topics Lists, Links and Recommendations)

Attachment Styles

The first article is an intro to attachment styles, the second article is about my previous relationship (between securely attached and anxiously attached partnrs).

There are different Attachment Styles: Secure; Anxious-Preoccupied; Dismissive-Avoidant; Fearful-Avoidant.

From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_in_adults)

The secure attachment style in adults corresponds to the secure attachment style in children. The anxious–preoccupied attachment style in adults corresponds to the anxious-ambivalent attachment style in children. However, the dismissive-avoidant attachment style and the fearful-avoidant attachment style, which are distinct in adults, correspond to a single avoidant attachment style in children. The descriptions of adult attachment styles offered below are based on the relationship questionnaire devised by Bartholomew and Horowitz[8] and on a review of studies by Pietromonaco and Barrett.[9]

Secure

ie: positive view of self and positive view of others [12]

Securely attached people 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 their attachments. Securely attached people tend to have positive views of themselves and their attachments. They also tend to have positive views of their relationships. Often they report greater satisfaction and adjustment in their relationships than people with other attachment styles. Securely attached people feel comfortable both with intimacy and with independence.

Secure attachment and adaptive functioning are promoted by a caregiver who is emotionally available and appropriately responsive to his or her child's attachment behavior, as well as capable of regulating both his or her positive and negative emotions.[13]

Insecure

Anxious-preoccupied

ie: negative view of self and positive view of others [14]

People with anxious-preoccupied attachment type 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", and "I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don't value me as much as I value them." People with this style of attachment 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 with securely attached people, people who are anxious or preoccupied with attachment 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 a person and blame themselves for the attachment figure's lack of responsiveness. People who are anxious or preoccupied with attachment may exhibit high levels of emotional expressiveness, emotional dysregulation, worry, and impulsiveness in their relationships.

Dismissive-avoidant

ie: positive view of self and negative view of others [15]

People with a dismissive style of avoidant attachment tend to agree with these statements: "I am comfortable without close emotional relationships", "It is important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient", and "I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me." People 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. Not surprisingly, they seek less intimacy with attachments, whom they often view less positively than they view themselves. Investigators commonly note the defensive character of this attachment style. People 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).

Fearful-avoidant

ie: unstable fluctuating/confused view of self and view of others [16]

People with losses or other trauma, such as sexual abuse in childhood and adolescence may often develop this type of attachment[17] and 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 the mixed feelings are combined with sometimes unconscious, negative views about themselves and their attachments. They commonly view themselves as unworthy of responsiveness from their attachments, and they don't trust the intentions of their attachments. Similar to the dismissive-avoidant attachment style, people with a fearful-avoidant attachment style seek less intimacy from attachments and frequently suppress and deny their feelings. Because of this, they are much less comfortable expressing affection.

Finally found out what was going on in a previous relationship, (aside from my issues/personality disorders, etc.). From what I can tell I have a ‘securely attached’ attachment style and I believe they had an ‘anxiously attached’ attachment style. It comes from how we’re reared, and reinforced by experience. I’ve read that we often find partners that match how we were reared (sometimes finding the opposite ‘attachment style’ in a partner).

Both partners may have had parts in the disruption that ended our relationship. The way I see it, we were both with personality issues and I wish we could have accepted that about each other and worked with it. I felt I just never had the language to express what I was experiencing on my side, in relating with an ‘anxiously attached’ partner. It often causes self fulfilling prophecies. For instance, if a partner had a boyfriend cheat on them, then they become hypervigilant and taking flirtations, preoccupations and sexualized behavior as threatening, when the securely attached partner was not intending to leave or physically cheat. A securely attached partner may do all they can, yet the anxiously attached may still not feel secure, cared for and comfortable and may often ask 'who would take care of them' (even when the secure partner does the best they can, and still not seemingly satisfoctor.

Interacting with the ‘anxiously attached’ (as expressed in the articles) is difficult as they expect to be abandoned and act in ways, as these articles explain: “often described as: High maintenance; Needy; Clingy; Jealous; Hard work; Exhausting; Suffocating; Dramatic; Overbearing. In this way the anxiously attached individual becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy – they believe their needs will never be met, so they exacerbate their needs, which leads to people rejecting them, calling them needy or hard work. This in turn keeps the internal world view going (“this is what always happens/people always let me down”), leading to a repetition of the attention demanding behaviors which drive people to reject them”.

From: The Negative Effects of Anxious Attachment on Intimate Relationships and How to Overcome Them https://www.anxiety.org/anxious-attachment-how-parental-behavior-affects-adult-intimate-relationships

Anxiously Attached Adult and Romantic Relationships

When considering the effect of adult attachment on romantic relationships, secure adults are known for having positive expectations about intimate relationships, and they are not afraid of closeness. In contrast, avoidant adults may get nervous whenever someone gets too close, claiming their independence and that they do not need anybody. Anxious adults represent clingy types and may often experience jealousy; they usually worry a lot about being rejected by their partner, so they try to please and gain their approval1.

Fear of infidelity may become an overriding concern for anxiously attached individuals. In a recent study, anxiously attached participants demonstrated being more hypervigilant for rejection cues by their partners and more prone to perceive many behaviors—sexual, erotic and causal interactions—as cheating9.

Fears of infidelity and abandonment may also influence the behavior ("mate retention behaviors") of adults who try to reduce the infidelity risk and dissolution of the relationship. Findings from a 2016 study demonstrated that women and men who rate higher in anxious romantic attachment perform more frequent mate retention behaviors.

Behaviors to Keep Mate in Relationship

Men seem to demonstrate such behaviors more often, and in general they scored higher on tests indicating anxious romantic attachment as compared to women10. From an evolutionary perspective, greater frequency of mate retention behaviors might make sense since the specter of cuckoldry and uncertain paternity has been an adaptive problem for men11. Men reported higher scores on behaviors such as direct guarding, vigilance, monopolizing time, inducing jealousy, punishing a partner's infidelity threat, emotional and commitment manipulation, derogatory actions, violence against rivals, submission and debasement, and public signals of possession. Conversely, women seem to utilize a distinct set of mate retention strategies—namely enhancing their appearance, love, and care 10.

Anxious Attachment in Intimate Relationships

While much of this discussion is centered on the aspects of anxious attachment on the self, it isn't hard to spot a partnership affected by this issue. Many anxiously attached individuals can appear clingy, controlling, or even aggressive. Their anxieties reflect their over-dependence on their partner for stability and reassurance—to give their life definition and purpose.

Paradoxically this puts a strain on relationships and results in lower relationship satisfaction12.

And while this attachment style cuts a destructive path through the fabric of one's most intimate connections, the dissolution of such a partnership does little to alleviate the condition. Anxiously attached individuals may react to breakups with angry protests, an all-consuming preoccupation with the former partner, a heightened sexual attraction to win the person back, and often by self-medicating with alcohol or drugs13.

Overcoming Attachment Issues

When concerned with the state of their intimate relationships or other relationships in general, anxious individuals would be well-served to consider ways to overcome attachment issues as an important step to improving social aspects of life.

A clinician would help them understand their internal working models, how they relate to others, their early experiences, and their relationships with significant others. An important goal in therapy could be modifying their working models to accommodate the realities of new experiences and relationships1.

From: HOW TO CHANGE YOUR ATTACHMENT STYLE https://www.whatiscodependency.com/change-your-attachment-style/

Anxious Attachment. You want to be close and are able to be intimate. To maintain a positive connection, you give up your needs to please and accommodate your partner. But because you don’t get your needs met, you become unhappy. You’re preoccupied with the relationship and highly attuned to your partner, worrying that he or she wants less closeness. You often take things personally with a negative twist and project negative outcomes. This could be explained by brain differences that have been detected among people with anxious attachments.

To alleviate your anxiety, you may play games or manipulate your partner to get attention and reassurance by withdrawing, acting out emotionally, not returning calls, provoking jealousy, or by threatening to leave. You may also become jealous of his or her attention to others and call or text frequently, even when asked not to.

From: Attachment Styles, or Comfort with Intimacy, Influence How People Behave https://www.truthaboutdeception.com/relationship-issues/attachment-styles.html

People who formed an anxious or preoccupied attachment as an infant, by comparison, are more likely to be preoccupied with their relationships as an adult. Anxious or preoccupied adults are constantly worried and anxious about their love life—they crave and desperately need intimacy—but, they never stop questioning their partner’s love (“do you really love me?”). Anxious individuals are concerned that their partners will leave them. They rarely feel completely loved and they experience extreme emotional highs and lows. One minute their romantic partner can make their day by showing them the smallest level of interest and the next minute they are worried that their partner doesn’t care about them. Overall, anxiously attached individuals are hard to satisfy; their fear of not being loved leads them to exaggerate their emotions and engage in controlling behaviors.

When trying to make sense of our close relationships, it also helps to understand how people form romantic attachments to each other.

To begin with, people differ in their comfort with intimacy in a very predictable manner.

Different Styles of Attachment

Briefly, the way we form an attachment to our romantic partners is based upon the kind of care we received as an infant. As infants, we typically form an attachment to our primary caregiver in one of four ways.

Please note, this page draws on the work of Bartholomew, Bowlby, Shaver and Hazan’s work on attachment styles and Cole and Leet’s review of research on attachment styles.

If you are not aware of your attachment style, please take our attachment style test before continuing. You will be sent back to this page after taking the test.

Attachment Style Test

As Children

When caregivers are consistently available and responsive, infants form a secure style of attachment (also see Ainsworth). Secure children feel safe and comfortable, and are able to explore and develop new skills with minimal anxiety or concern.

When caregivers are inconsistent or overly protective, however, infants form an anxious or preoccupied attachment to the person primarily responsible for their care. Anxious or preoccupied children monitor their caregivers more closely, attempt to stay by their caregiver’s side and respond more dramatically when in trouble. Anxious children are simply more fearful and less confident than infants who are securely attached.

When caregivers are stretched too thin, infants are likely to develop a dismissing style of attachment (dismissing attachment is also called avoidant attachment). Dismissing children show few signs of needing their caregivers, they do not spend a lot of time trying to get their caregiver’s attention, and they do their best to cope with problems on their own.

Finally, some individuals form an fearful-avoidant style of attachment, which includes both anxious and dismissing tendencies. Such individuals experience mixed emotions, seeking both closeness and distance in their relationships.

As Adults

When we fall in love as an adult, the style of attachment formed as an infant influences how we treat our romantic partners.

People who formed a secure attachment to their caregivers tend to form a secure attachment to the person they love.

Individuals with a secure style of attachment have more satisfying and longer lasting relationships. Secure individuals are comfortable being close to their partners. They are comfortable having someone depend on them just as they are comfortable being dependent on another individual. Being more trusting, open, and understanding, they approach problems and issues that may arise with their partners in a constructive manner.

People who had a dismissing style of attachment as an infant are likely to form a dismissing attachment to their romantic partners. As adults, dismissing individuals are uncomfortable with intimacy—they actually fear it. They do not like it when people get close, and they don’t like being dependent on a partner or having someone be dependent on them. Dismissing individuals tend not to trust others, and they are more self-sufficient, cynical, and independent in nature. They are less likely to fall deeply in love and need a lot less affection and intimacy. Dismissing individuals are more apt to put their time into their careers, hobbies, and activities rather than their relationships. They also get easily annoyed with their relational partners and often display negative feelings and hostility toward their loved ones.

Finally, an fearful-avoidant individual’s behavior is difficult to predict because it is based on mixed emotions—the need to be close to a partner while simultaneously wanting to push a partner away.

Attachment Styles Influence How We React

Knowing if you have a secure, anxious/preoccupied, dismissing or fearful-avoidant style of attachment is important because it influences what happens in our romantic relationships.

Attachments styles influence how people think, feel, and behave. Almost every relational behavior from jealousy to infidelity to deception is influenced by one’s style of attachment.

The following example shows how important attachment styles can be:

Imagine that you are engaged and that your fiancé is going out with his or her friends for the evening. Your fiancé says that he or she will be home by midnight and that he or she will give you a call at that time.

Now, imagine that you have a secure attachment style and it is after 1a.m. and you notice that the phone hasn’t rung. You are probably thinking that all is well, your fiancé is out having fun and he or she will call you in the morning—no big deal.

Now, imagine that you have an anxious or preoccupied style of attachment. The exact same scenario—its 1a.m. and the phone hasn’t rung. What’s going through your mind and how are you dealing with the situation? How many times have you thought about calling your fiancé? Maybe you’ve even decided to go out and track him or her down.

Finally, consider what a person with a dismissing style of attachment would be experiencing. Do you even notice the phone hasn’t rung? Probably not.

Now, let’s fast forward to the next morning. Your fiancé calls early in the morning.

How would a secure individual respond? As a securely attached individual you are pleased to hear from your fiancé and would probably ask “What happened last night?” As a secure person, you are most likely to be satisfied with the explanation that is given.

As an anxious/preoccupied person, however, you will be a complete wreck, having been up all night imagining the worst and most likely plotting some sort of way to get even. By the time the phone finally rings, your anger and frustration can’t help but show, whether through sulking or putting your fiancé on the defensive by asking accusatory questions (“How could you do that? Where were you? Who were you with? Why didn’t you call when you said you would?”).

Finally, as a dismissing individual you will probably be wondering why your fiancé is bothering to call so early in the morning—“What do you want?”

It helps to understand how we form attachments to romantic partners because our style of attachment influences so much of what happens in our close relationships. One’s attachment style influences our experience of...

jealousy

self-disclosure

conflict

forgiveness

love

commitment

lying

infidelity

sexual behavior

and hundreds of other relational behaviors

For example, anxious/preoccupied individuals are more likely to experience jealousy, while dismissing individuals are much less likely to do so. Anxious/preoccupied individuals are more likely to over disclose personal information, while dismissing individuals are more tight-lipped. Anxious/preoccupied individuals are overly eager to make relational commitments while dismissing individuals are uncomfortable doing so (also see can an anxious and a dismissing individual make a relationship work?).

Related Information:

how attachment styles influence lying and deception

how attachment styles influence forgiveness

more information on how individuals form attachments

a blog highlighting research on attachment

a forum for discussing attachment issues

overview of how attachment issues influence romantic relationships

From: Anxious Attachment: Understanding Insecure Anxious Attachment https://www.psychalive.org/understanding-ambivalent-anxious-attachment/

These people are often driven to engage in pre-emptive strategies in an attempt to avoid being rejected. However, their excessive dependency, demands and possessiveness tend to backfire and precipitate the very abandonment that they fear. Attachment theorists and researchers Shaver and Clark, (1994), have observed that “preoccupied” partners appear to be “perpetually vigilant and somewhat histrionic.” They feel resentful and angry when their partner doesn’t provide the attention and reassurance they feel they need. They often believe that unless they dramatically express their anxiety and anger, it is unlikely that the other person will respond to them. Many of those with preoccupied attachments are reluctant to express their angry feelings toward a partner for fear of potential loss or rejection. When they try to suppress their anger, their behavior tends to vacillate between outbursts of anger and pleas for forgiveness and support. In some cases, the fears and anxieties can lead to more serious emotional disturbances, such as depression.

From: Where Our Relationship Patterns Come From https://www.psychalive.org/where-relationship-patterns-come-from/

For pretty much everyone, relationships with our early caretakers are complex and likely include some frustration and pain. Yet, whether we grew up with a secure or insecure attachment pattern, one thing is for sure, our present relationships are heavily influenced by our earliest attachments.The way we experienced relationships in our very early lives creates an “internal working model” for how we view relationships throughout our lives. In other words, our past relationships affect everything from who we choose as a partner to how we are likely to interact with them and what behavior we will illicit from them. Our early relationships provide a template for how relationships go; can I depend on others? Will they sooth me when I need it? Will they see me for who I really am?

How we adapted to our early relationships, the defenses we formed, also shape how we will behave toward romantic partners. For example, do you believe you are better off not depending on others and taking care of yourself? Or do you believe the opposite, that you “need” to get your significant other to take care of you, and therefore, you are preoccupied by getting their attention? Are you trapped in a double bind of being afraid to get close to anyone yet terrified of being alone?

In many ways the attachment style we formed early on impacts how we behave in relationships and how we expect others to behave. If we’re wondering why certain dynamics keep playing out or patterns keep developing in our relationships, it’s important to consider the working models we’re bringing to the table.

The early attachment styles we experienced shape these internal working models. For example, many people grow up with an avoidant attachment to a parent. They may not have felt they could get their needs met easily by that parent, and therefore, adapted to become more self-contained and self-sufficient. As adults, they carry this model with them. They may not think people will be there for them, so they rely on themselves and resist trusting or getting too close.

On the other hand, many people grow up with an ambivalent attachment style in which they felt they had to cling to their parent or caretaker in order to get their needs met. Their parent may have been available and attuned some of the time, and then all of a sudden they’d be neglectful or rejecting. The parents may even become emotionally hungry at times, attempting to get their own needs met by their child. As a result, these people may grow up feeling desperate, insecure and clingy toward a romantic partner.

Our working models affect the way we see the world. We often perceive people as reflections of our past, assuming they will think and behave in certain patterns. We may also unconsciously choose partners who fit these patterns – whose own attachment styles complement/ mesh with ours. For example, if we grew up feeling ignored, we may find ourselves in relationships with people who are unavailable, aloof, cold or flat out rejecting. If we felt intruded on as kids, we may choose people who are controlling, jealous or demanding.

When two people come together, they both have their own working models that affect each other. Both partners may engage in behaviors that push or provoke each other in ways that encourage each other to play the other half of these old, familiar dynamics. As couples play out their side of the model, their relationships can start to look more and more like those of their past. This reinforces each partner’s working model, confirming what they already believe about love and relationships.

The good news is, we are not doomed to repeat the patterns of our past. We can change our model, but we have to identify it, so we can challenge it. Because our expectations and ideas about relationships form from our early experiences, it’s necessary to make sense of those experiences in order to create healthier relationships in the present. Allowing our past to consume us emotionally doesn’t work but neither does burying the past and pretending like it doesn’t affect us. What does work is creating a coherent narrative.

Attachment researchers speak of the importance of creating a coherent narrative as a technique for developing inner security, which allows us to form more healthy adult relationships. Through the Adult Attachment Interview, developed by Mary Main and her colleagues, researchers found that by assessing how well people are able to make sense of and convey their life story, it is possible to predict the attachments they will form with their children. It turns out that no matter how difficult a person’s childhood was, if they are able to make sense of and feel the full feeling of what they experienced as children, they are better able to form healthier ties with people close to them in the present.

In the online course I co-lead with Dr. Daniel Siegel, “Making Sense of Your Life,” he and I discuss how to go about the steps of creating a coherent narrative. We encourage people to explore their attachment history and understand the large and small early life events that shape who they are today. This endeavor is one that doesn’t just benefit our romantic relationships, but every relationship we form in life. As Dr. Siegel has said, ““The fantastic news is that if you can make sense of your childhood experiences—especially your relationships with your parents—you can transform your attachment models toward security. The reason this is important is that relationships— with friends, with romantic partners, with present or possible future offspring—will be profoundly enhanced. And you’ll feel better with yourself, too!”

From: HOW TO CHANGE YOUR ATTACHMENT STYLE https://www.whatiscodependency.com/change-your-attachment-style/

seek or avoid intimacy along a continuum, but one of the following three styles is generally predominant whether we’re dating or in a long term marriage:

Secure – 50 percent of the population

Anxious – 20 percent of the population

Avoidant – 25 percent of the population

Combinations, such as Secure-Anxious or Anxious-Avoidant are 3-5 percent of the population. To determine your style, take this quiz designed by researcher R. Chris Fraley, PhD. (I’m ‘secure low anxiety’ on the quiz)

From: Staying Attached to an Anxious Partner https://relateinstitute.com/staying-attached-to-an-anxious-partner/

While difficult, again they show that it is possible to have a successful and happy relationship with an anxious partner.

Intrusive Boundaries

Anxiously attached individuals feel safest when their partner is available to them. This may lead them to contact you frequently when you are away, or always want to be near you when you are together. Early on in a relationship, they may share more with you than you are ready for. All of these behaviors can make you feel uncomfortable and feel like an intrusion on your personal space.

What you can do

When you find yourself with an anxious partner, give them assurances throughout the day that you care about them. It may be annoying to have to respond to a text or phone call every five minutes, but if you ignore them they will only get more anxious. Instead, try setting your own routine of contacting them throughout the day at regular intervals that are more manageable. For example, call them once or twice to give them updates on your day. Taking the initiative in this way will provide the predictability they need, but allow you to set reasonable boundaries that you feel comfortable with.

Handling conflict

While avoidant partners are often not very confrontational, anxious partners can be very volatile and react with extreme emotions if they think something is going wrong. Because of this, they might often find something wrong with everything you do, and then confront you about it.

What you can do

No one really likes to argue, but you may think your partner does. The truth is that anxious individuals often jump to worse-case scenarios. Think about how often you call your partner during the day. Many anxious individuals may call you every hour because they fear you are with someone else. While it is very unlikely that most people would begin an affair in an hour, anxious individuals are often emotionally driven rather than logically driven. When your partner starts to question your behavior or motives, responding with defensiveness or a return of strong emotions may just confirm in their mind that they are right. Instead, remain calm and try to calm your partner down. Don’t make this about you, but walk them through their own thoughts using logic to combat the emotions. The key here is to keep from sounding defensive and showing them that they are your first concern.

Predictability and Security

The greatest need of anxious individuals is to feel that the world around them is predictable. Anytime something unexpected happens they are likely to feel insecure about the relationship and themselves. The obvious next step is to put up their defenses. These may come in the form of leaving the relationship with little or no explanation, or feelings of unworthiness and undesirability. Your partner may increase in intrusive or emotionally driven behaviors.

What you can do

The key to staying connected to an anxious partner is that they want to feel close. By keeping your relationship patterns as predictable as possible and helping the anxious partner feel safe with your routines, your relationship can be very fulfilling for both of you. Be consistent and intentional about how you relate to your partner. When change does need to happen in a routine, take it slow and only make minor changes so your partner can adjust to the new routines in a way that feels safe to them. Explain what you are doing and why you are doing it so they are less likely to second-guess your motives.

It takes a lot of work and discipline to create a secure and safe relationship for anxious individuals, but showing your partner that they are safe with you will help them find security in many different kinds of relationships.

To see where you fall on the attachment spectrum, try taking our RELATE or READY assessments.

Read the original article here.

Written by: Dallin

From: Four styles of adult attachment https://www.evergreenpsychotherapycenter.com/styles-adult-attachment/

Preoccupied (Anxious)

Insecure in intimate relationships; constantly worried about rejection and abandonment; preoccupied with relationship; “hyperactivates” attachment needs and behavior.

Needy; requires ongoing reassurance; want to “merge” with partner, which scares partner away.

Ruminates about unresolved past issues from family-of-origin, which intrudes into present perceptions and relationships (fear, hurt, anger, rejection).

Overly sensitive to partner’s actions and moods; takes partner’s behavior too personally.

Highly emotional; can be argumentative, combative, angry and controlling; poor personal boundaries.

Communication is not collaborative; unaware of own responsibility in relationship issues; blames others.

Unpredictable and moody; connects through conflict, “stirs the pot.”

Inconsistent attunement with own children, who are likely to be anxiously attached.

The aim for all insecure attachment styles is to gain earned secure attachment. This can be achieved through reparative relationships including therapist to client. This article focuses on the anxiously attached.

From: What is an Anxious Attachment Style? https://sharonmartincounseling.com/anxious-attachment-style-san-jose-counseling/

According to the book Attached by Amir Levine and Rachel Heller, approximately 50% of adults are securely attached, 25% are avoidant, 20% are anxious, and the remaining 5% are a combination. Securely attached individuals tend to couple with other securely attached people and form healthy, lasting relationships. This leaves people with anxious attachment styles and avoidant attachment styles over-represented in the dating pool.

At first glance, it seems like two anxiously attached individuals or two people with avoidant attachment styles would make good matches. However, when we look more closely at the unconscious motivations that drive our behavior, we see that these matches have some problems and that we’re much more likely to be attracted to someone with the opposite attachment style.

From: Where Our Relationship Patterns Come From https://www.psychalive.org/where-relationship-patterns-come-from/

From: How to Deal with Relationship Anxiety https://www.psychalive.org/how-to-deal-with-relationship-anxiety/

This critical inner voice makes us turn against ourselves and the people close to us. It can promote hostile, paranoid and suspicious thinking that lowers our self-esteem and drives unhealthy levels of distrust, defensiveness, jealousy and anxiety. Basically, it feeds us a consistent stream of thoughts that undermine our happiness and make us worry about our relationship, rather than just enjoying it.

When we get in our heads, focusing on these worried thoughts, we become incredibly distracted from real relating with our partner. We may start to act out in destructive ways, making nasty comments or becoming childish or parental toward our significant other. For example, imagine your partner stays at work late one night. Sitting home alone, your inner critic starts telling you, “Where is she? Can you really believe her? She probably prefers being away from you. She’s trying to avoid you. She doesn’t even love you anymore.” These thoughts can snowball in your mind until, by the time your partner gets home, you’re feeling insecure, furious or paranoid. You may act angry or cold, which then sets your partner off to feel frustrated and defensive. Pretty soon, you’ve completely shifted the dynamic between you. Instead of enjoying the time you have together, you may waste an entire night feeling withdrawn and upset with each other. You’ve now effectively forced the distance you initially feared. The culprit behind this self-fulfilling prophecy isn’t the situation itself. It’s that critical inner voice that colored your thinking, distorted your perceptions, and ultimately, led you down a destructive path.

When it comes to all of the things we worry ourselves about in relationships, we are much more resilient than we think. In truth, we can handle the hurts and rejections that we so fear. We can experience pain, and eventually, heal. However, our critical inner voice tends to terrorize and catastrophize reality. It can rouse serious spells of anxiety about dynamics that don’t exist and threats that aren’t even tangible. Even when there are real things going on, someone breaks up with us or feels an interest in someone else, our critical inner voice will tear us apart in ways we don’t deserve. It will completely distort reality and undermine our own strength and resilience. It’s that cynical roommate that always gives bad advice. “You can’t survive this. Just put your guard up and never be vulnerable to anyone else.”

The defenses we form and critical voices we hear are based on our own unique experiences and adaptations. When we feel anxious or insecure, some of us have a tendency to become clingy and desperate in our actions. We may feel possessive or controlling toward our partner in response. Conversely, some of us will feel easily intruded on in our relationships. We may retreat from our partners, detach from our feelings of desire. We may act out by being aloof, distant or guarded. These patterns of relating can come from our early attachment styles. Our attachment pattern is established in our childhood attachments and continues to function as a working model for relationships in adulthood. It influences how each of us reacts to our needs and how we go about getting them met. Different attachment styles can lead us to experience different levels of relationship anxiety. You can learn more about what your attachment style is and how it impacts your romantic relationships here.

What Thoughts Perpetuate Relationship Anxiety?

The specific critical inner voices we have about ourselves, our partner and relationships are formed out of early attitudes we were exposed to in our family or in society at large. Sexual stereotypes as well as attitudes that our influential caretakers had toward themselves and others can infiltrate our point of view and shade our current perceptions. While, everyone’s inner critic is different, some common critical inner voices include:

Critical Inner Voices about the Relationship

People just wind up getting hurt.

Relationships never work out.

Voices about Your Partner

Men are so insensitive, unreliable, selfish.

Women are so fragile, needy, indirect.

He only cares about being with his friends.

Why get so excited? What’s so great about her anyway?

He’s probably cheating on you.

You can’t trust her.

He just can’t get anything right.

Voices about Yourself

You’re never going to find another person who understands you.

Don’t get too hooked on her.

He doesn’t really care about you.

She is too good for you.

You’ve got to keep him interested.

You’re better off on your own.

As soon as she gets to know you, she will reject you.

You’ve got to be in control.

It’s your fault if he gets upset.

Don’t be too vulnerable or you’ll just wind up getting hurt.

How Does Relationship Anxiety Affect Us?

As we shed light into our past, we quickly realize there are many early influences that have shaped our attachment pattern, our psychological defenses and our critical inner voice. All of these factors contribute to our relationship anxiety and can lead us to sabotage our love lives in many ways. Listening to our inner critic and giving in to this anxiety can result in the following actions:

Cling – When we feel anxious, our tendency may be to act desperate toward our partner. We may stop feeling like the independent, strong people we were when we entered the relationship. As a result, we may find ourselves falling apart easily, acting jealous or insecure or no longer engaging in independent activities.

Control – When we feel threatened, we may attempt to dominate or control our partner. We may set rules about what they can and can’t do just to alleviate our own feelings of insecurity or anxiousness. This behavior can alienate our partner and breed resentment.

Reject – If we feel worried about our relationship, one defense we may turn to is aloofness. We may become cold or rejecting to protect ourselves or to beat our partner to the punch. These actions can be subtle or overt, yet it is almost always a sure way to force distance or to stir up insecurity in our partner.

Withhold – Sometimes, as opposed to explicit rejection, we tend to withhold from our partner when we feel anxious or afraid. Perhaps things have gotten close, and we feel stirred up, so we retreat. We hold back little affections or give up on some aspect of our relationship altogether. Withholding may seem like a passive act, but it is one of the quietest killers of passion and attraction in a relationship.

Punish – Sometimes, our response to our anxiety is more aggressive, and we actually punish, taking our feelings out on our partner. We may yell and scream or give our partner the cold shoulder. It’s important to pay attention to how much our actions are a response to our partner and how much are they a response to our critical inner voice.

Retreat – When we feel scared in a relationship, we may give up real acts of love and intimacy and retreat into a “fantasy bond.” A fantasy bond is an illusion of connection that replaces real acts of love. In this state of fantasy, we focus on form over substance. We may stay in the relationship to feel secure but give up on the vital parts of relating. In a fantasy bond, we often engage in many of the destructive behaviors mentioned above as a means to create distance and defend ourselves against the anxiety that naturally comes with feeling free and in love. Learn more about the fantasy bond here.

How Can I Overcome Relationship Anxiety?

In order to overcome, relationship anxiety, we must shift our focus inward. We have to look at what’s going on inside us, separate from our partner or the relationship. What critical inner voices are exacerbating our fears? What defenses do we possess that could be creating distance? This process of self-discovery can be a vital step in understanding the feelings that drive our behavior, and ultimately, shape our relationship. By looking into our past, we can gain better insight into where these feelings come from. What caused us to feel insecure or turned on ourselves in relation to love? You can start this journey for yourself by learning more about the fear of intimacy and how to identify and overcome your critical inner voice.

Learn more strategies for overcoming relationship anxiety in our Webinar with Dr. Lisa Firestone: Understanding and Overcoming Relationship Anxiety.

From: Breaking Free of Anxious Attachment https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/own-inner-child-breaking-free-of-anxious-attachment-0613164

THERAPY FOR THE ANXIOUS: BONDING WITH THE SELF

In moments of interpersonal conflict, many of us switch to younger states. We disconnect from present-day resources, reacting not to partners but to parents. Even with adult partners, we return to perceptions, expectations, and strategies learned at an early age. We become the child in the empty room, feeling ourselves empty until it fills once again. Or we become the child playing in our room, safe, away from the needs or threats of others throughout the house, hoping no one comes to the door.

Invariably, in order to heal and decrease dependence on others, those on the anxious end of the spectrum will find themselves exploring ways to build an internal support structure—some part of the self that remains strong, dependable, unthreatened by intense emotion. This might be framed as “self-validation” or as an “internal parent.”

In the beginning, though, they naturally seek others—friends, partners, and therapists—to provide this support, validation, and witnessing. “This isn’t the way life is supposed to be,” they may say. “We are supposed to be able to depend on others.”

Some may recognize a resentment of the therapy work, even a shame in it. They may view self-sufficiency or self-soothing as a secondary strategy, only used when one fails to belong in the world. They may feel conflict internally and with their therapist, feeling blamed while also feeling victimized in relationship: “I’m the one who feels so devastated when people leave me. Yet you’re saying I play a part in that.”

ANOTHER WAY TO FRAME ANXIOUS ATTACHMENT

If we reframe “preoccupation” as the ongoing abandonment feelings of an inner child, we begin to differentiate from the part feeling the pain. This is important for the present-day adult who feels hijacked by emotions. It is also vitally important for the hurting child (or the old neural network that takes over) to have a compassionate internal witness.

It’s hard to take ownership of the child inside, noticing that it reaches out to make demands of others—a natural next step when it finds no internal caregiver available.

There’s a message often internalized in childhood: the unspoken message from a parent saying, “I can’t handle this child! Let someone else take care of it.” It’s a message repeated internally when emotion is high, when the old state is triggered. Many in therapy eventually realize they actually hate the child in them. They hand this emotional part of the self out to others, saying to friends, families, and partners: “I can’t handle this child in me! It’s too much! You take care of it.”

It’s important to begin separating parts in this way, to speak of each in third person, to gradually hear the dialogue already occurring between them. This is differentiation, and it is a necessary component of self-soothing. We cannot witness a part when we are that part. It requires some distance. Effective witnessing requires the development of an internal “other.”

Developing internal parts is something most of us have already done many times throughout life. We’ve developed internal guards and gatekeepers—judges, parents. These are the parts that judge and contain us today.

We can also develop an internal witness—one that does not judge, is not threatened by any emotion, does not attack, pull away, pity, analyze, or try to fix. One that meets us with empathy and compassion to witness our pains and joys in the ways we always wished an other would.

An intentionally developed part is just as valid as the parts that developed automatically in life. The compassion and affirmation we can give ourselves is just as real and valid as the internal abuse we already trust. It’s all internal dialogue between parts of the self. In therapy, we are just making that dialogue more conscious and intentional.

Certain therapeutic approaches, such as Hakomi and Internal Family Systems, work precisely to create an internal environment of acceptance and unity, facilitating integration through differentiation of parts.

SOME FINAL POINTS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Our own perceptions are less accurate when the body is in fight-or-flight mode. We easily catastrophize when activated. Mindfulnesspractice can increase present-moment awareness of our bodily activation level. When it gets too high, it’s okay to take a break, to step away from the argument, and to connect with resources to help your body calm. Life looks different on the other side of the nervous system.

Another way to tell if you are activated: Can you hear someone’s “no” and not take it personally?

It’s important to begin recognizing the elements of fantasy in your relationships. Do you want an equal partner? Are there moments you really do want to be taken care of? Most of us experience both.

This struggle is common. It is human.

Do you give up your own interests, ideas, ideals, and pursuits in order to keep a relationship?

It’s okay to grieve the fantasy.

References:

Karen, R. (1998). Becoming attached: First relationships and how they shape our capacity to love. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kinnison, J. (2014). Type: Anxious-Preoccupied. Retrieved from https://jebkinnison.com/bad-boyfriends-the-book/type-anxious-preoccupied

Levine, A., & Heller, R. (2010). Attached: The new science of adult attachment and how it can help you find- and keep -love. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher.

From: Adult Attachment Theory and Research http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://labs.psychology.illinois.edu/~rcfraley/attachment.htm

Summary

Research on adult attachment is guided by the assumption that the same motivational system that gives rise to the close emotional bond between parents and their children is responsible for the bond that develops between adults in emotionally intimate relationships. The objective of this essay is to provide a brief overview of the history of adult attachment research, the key theoretical ideas, and a sampling of some of the research findings. This essay has been written for people who are interested in learning more about research on adult attachment.

Background: Bowlby's Theory of Attachment

The theory of attachment was originally developed by John Bowlby (1907 - 1990), a British psychoanalyst who was attempting to understand the intense distress experienced by infants who had been separated from their parents. Bowlby observed that separated infants would go to extraordinary lengths (e.g., crying, clinging, frantically searching) to prevent separation from their parents or to reestablish proximity to a missing parent. At the time of Bowlby's initial writings, psychoanalytic writers held that these expressions were manifestations of immature defense mechanisms that were operating to repress emotional pain, but Bowlby noted that such expressions are common to a wide variety of mammalian species, and speculated that these behaviors may serve an evolutionary function.

Drawing on ethological theory, Bowlby postulated that these attachment behaviors, such as crying and searching, were adaptive responses to separation from a primary attachment figure--someone who provides support, protection, and care. Because human infants, like other mammalian infants, cannot feed or protect themselves, they are dependent upon the care and protection of "older and wiser" adults. Bowlby argued that, over the course of evolutionary history, infants who were able to maintain proximity to an attachment figure via attachment behaviors would be more likely to survive to a reproductive age. According to Bowlby, a motivational system, what he called the attachment behavioral system, was gradually "designed" by natural selection to regulate proximity to an attachment figure.

The attachment behavior system is an important concept in attachment theory because it provides the conceptual linkage between ethological models of human development and modern theories on emotion regulation and personality. According to Bowlby, the attachment system essentially "asks" the following fundamental question: Is the attachment figure nearby, accessible, and attentive? If the child perceives the answer to this question to be "yes," he or she feels loved, secure, and confident, and, behaviorally, is likely to explore his or her environment, play with others, and be sociable. If, however, the child perceives the answer to this question to be "no," the child experiences anxiety and, behaviorally, is likely to exhibit attachment behaviors ranging from simple visual searching on the low extreme to active following and vocal signaling on the other (see Figure 1). These behaviors continue until either the child is able to reestablish a desirable level of physical or psychological proximity to the attachment figure, or until the child "wears down," as may happen in the context of a prolonged separation or loss. In such cases, Bowlby believed that young children experienced profound despair and depression.

Figure 1. Basic control processes

Individual Differences in Infant Attachment Patterns

Although Bowlby believed that the basic dynamics described above captured the normative dynamics of the attachment behavioral system, he recognized that there are individual differences in the way children appraise the accessibility of the attachment figure and how they regulate their attachment behavior in response to threats. However, it wasn't until his colleague, Mary Ainsworth (1913 – 1999), began to systematically study infant-parent separations that a formal understanding of these individual differences was articulated. Ainsworth and her students developed a technique called the strange situation--a laboratory paradigm for studying infant-parent attachment. In the strange situation, 12-month-old infants and their parents are brought to the laboratory and, systematically, separated from and reunited with one another. In the strange situation, most children (i.e., about 60%) behave in the way implied by Bowlby's "normative" theory. They become upset when the parent leaves the room, but, when he or she returns, they actively seek the parent and are easily comforted by him or her. Children who exhibit this pattern of behavior are often called secure. Other children (about 20% or less) are ill-at-ease initially, and, upon separation, become extremely distressed. Importantly, when reunited with their parents, these children have a difficult time being soothed, and often exhibit conflicting behaviors that suggest they want to be comforted, but that they also want to "punish" the parent for leaving. These children are often called anxious-resistant. The third pattern of attachment that Ainsworth and her colleagues documented is called avoidant. Avoidant children (about 20%) don't appear too distressed by the separation, and, upon reunion, actively avoid seeking contact with their parent, sometimes turning their attention to play objects on the laboratory floor.

Ainsworth's work was important for at least three reasons. First, she provided one of the first empirical demonstrations of how attachment behavior is patterned in both safe and frightening contexts. Second, she provided the first empirical taxonomy of individual differences in infant attachment patterns. According to her research, at least three types of children exist: those who are secure in their relationship with their parents, those who are anxious-resistant, and those who are anxious-avoidant. Finally, she demonstrated that these individual differences were correlated with infant-parent interactions in the home during the first year of life. Children who appear secure in the strange situation, for example, tend to have parents who are responsive to their needs. Children who appear insecure in the strange situation (i.e., anxious-resistant or avoidant) often have parents who are insensitive to their needs, or inconsistent or rejecting in the care they provide. In the years that have followed, a number of researchers have demonstrated links between early parental sensitivity and responsiveness and attachment security.

Adult Romantic Relationships

Although Bowlby was primarily focused on understanding the nature of the infant-caregiver relationship, he believed that attachment characterized human experience from "the cradle to the grave." It was not until the mid-1980's, however, that researchers began to take seriously the possibility that attachment processes may play out in adulthood. Hazan and Shaver (1987) were two of the first researchers to explore Bowlby's ideas in the context of romantic relationships. According to Hazan and Shaver, the emotional bond that develops between adult romantic partners is partly a function of the same motivational system--the attachment behavioral system--that gives rise to the emotional bond between infants and their caregivers. Hazan and Shaver noted that the relationship between infants and caregivers and the relationship between adult romantic partners share the following features:

both feel safe when the other is nearby and responsive

both engage in close, intimate, bodily contact

both feel insecure when the other is inaccessible

both share discoveries with one another

both play with one another's facial features and exhibit a mutual fascination and preoccupation with one another

both engage in "baby talk"

On the basis of these parallels, Hazan and Shaver argued that adult romantic relationships, like infant-caregiver relationships, are attachments, and that romantic love is a property of the attachment behavioral system, as well as the motivational systems that give rise to caregiving and sexuality.

Three Implications of Adult Attachment Theory

The idea that romantic relationships may be attachment relationships has had a profound influence on modern research on close relationships. There are at least three critical implications of this idea. First, if adult romantic relationships are attachment relationships, then we should observe the same kinds of individual differences in adult relationships that Ainsworth observed in infant-caregiver relationships. We may expect some adults, for example, to be secure in their relationships--to feel confident that their partners will be there for them when needed, and open to depending on others and having others depend on them. We should expect other adults, in contrast, to be insecure in their relationships. For example, some insecure adults may be anxious-resistant: they worry that others may not love them completely, and be easily frustrated or angered when their attachment needs go unmet. Others may be avoidant: they may appear not to care too much about close relationships, and may prefer not to be too dependent upon other people or to have others be too dependent upon them.

Second, if adult romantic relationships are attachment relationships, then the way adult relationships "work" should be similar to the way infant-caregiver relationships work. In other words, the same kinds of factors that facilitate exploration in children (i.e., having a responsive caregiver) should facilitate exploration among adults (i.e., having a responsive partner). The kinds of things that make an attachment figure "desirable" for infants (i.e., responsiveness, availability) are the kinds of factors adults should find desirable in romantic partners. In short, individual differences in attachment should influence relational and personal functioning in adulthood in the same way they do in childhood.

Third, whether an adult is secure or insecure in his or her adult relationships may be a partial reflection of his or her experiences with his or her primary caregivers. Bowlby believed that the mental representations or working models (i.e., expectations, beliefs, "rules" or "scripts" for behaving and thinking) that a child holds regarding relationships are a function of his or her caregiving experiences. For example, a secure child tends to believe that others will be there for him or her because previous experiences have led him or her to this conclusion. Once a child has developed such expectations, he or she will tend to seek out relational experiences that are consistent with those expectations and perceive others in a way that is colored by those beliefs. According to Bowlby, this kind of process should promote continuity in attachment patterns over the life course, although it is possible that a person's attachment pattern will change if his or her relational experiences are inconsistent with his or her expectations. In short, if we assume that adult relationships are attachment relationships, it is possible that children who are secure as children will grow up to be secure in their romantic relationships. Or, relatedly, that people who are secure as adults in their relationships with their parents will be more likely to forge secure relationships with new partners.

In the sections below I briefly address these three implications in light of early and contemporary research on adult attachment.

Do We Observe the Same Kinds of Attachment Patterns Among Adults that We Observe Among Children?

The earliest research on adult attachment involved studying the association between individual differences in adult attachment and the way people think about their relationships and their memories for what their relationships with their parents are like. Hazan and Shaver (1987) developed a simple questionnaire to measure these individual differences. (These individual differences are often referred to as attachment styles, attachment patterns, attachment orientations, or differences in the organization of the attachment system.) In short, Hazan and Shaver asked research subjects to read the three paragraphs listed below, and indicate which paragraph best characterized the way they think, feel, and behave in close relationships:

A. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, others want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.

B. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don't worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me.

C. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I want to get very close to my partner, and this sometimes scares people away.

Based on this three-category measure, Hazan and Shaver found that the distribution of categories was similar to that observed in infancy. In other words, about 60% of adults classified themselves as secure (paragraph B), about 20% described themselves as avoidant (paragraph A), and about 20% described themselves as anxious-resistant (paragraph C).

Although this measure served as a useful way to study the association between attachment styles and relationship functioning, it didn't allow a full test of the hypothesis that the same kinds of individual differences observed in infants might be manifest among adults. (In many ways, the Hazan and Shaver measure assumed this to be true.) Subsequent research has explored this hypothesis in a variety of ways. For example, Kelly Brennan and her colleagues collected a number of statements (e.g., "I believe that others will be there for me when I need them") and studied the way these statements "hang together" statistically (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Brennan's findings suggested that there are two fundamental dimensions with respect to adult attachment patterns (see Figure 2). One critical variable has been labeled attachment-related anxiety. People who score high on this variable tend to worry whether their partner is available, responsive, attentive, etc. People who score on the low end of this variable are more secure in the perceived responsiveness of their partners. The other critical variable is called attachment-related avoidance. People on the high end of this dimension prefer not to rely on others or open up to others. People on the low end of this dimension are more comfortable being intimate with others and are more secure depending upon and having others depend upon them. A prototypical secure adult is low on both of these dimensions.

Figure 2. Two-dimensional model of individual differences in adult attachment

Brennan's findings are critical because recent analyses of the statistical patterning of behavior among infants in the strange situation reveal two functionally similar dimensions: one that captures variability in the anxiety and resistance of the child and another that captures variability in the child's willingness to use the parent as a safe haven for support (see Fraley & Spieker, 2003a, 2003b). Functionally, these dimensions are similar to the two-dimensions uncovered among adults, suggesting that similar patterns of attachment exist at different points in the life span.

In light of Brennan's findings, as well as taxometric research published by Fraley and Waller (1998), most researchers currently conceptualize and measure individual differences in attachment dimensionally rather than categorically. That is, it is assumed that attachment styles are things that vary in degree rather than kind. The most popular measures of adult attachment style are Brennan, Clark, and Shaver's (1998) ECR and Fraley, Waller, and Brennan's (2000) ECR-R--a revised version of the ECR. [Click here to take an on-line quiz designed to determine your attachment style based on these two dimensions.] Both of these self-report instruments provide continuous scores on the two dimensions of attachment-related anxiety and avoidance. [Click here to learn more about self-report measures of individual differences in adult attachment.]

Do Adult Romantic Relationships "Work" in the Same Way that Infant-Caregiver Relationships Work?

There is now an increasing amount of research that suggests that adult romantic relationships function in ways that are similar to infant-caregiver relationships, with some noteworthy exceptions, of course. Naturalistic research on adults separating from their partners at an airport demonstrated that behaviors indicative of attachment-related protest and caregiving were evident, and that the regulation of these behaviors was associated with attachment style (Fraley & Shaver, 1998). For example, while separating couples generally showed more attachment behavior than nonseparating couples, highly avoidant adults showed much less attachment behavior than less avoidant adults. In the sections below I discuss some of the parallels that have been discovered between the way that infant-caregiver relationships and adult romantic relationships function.

Partner selection

Cross-cultural studies suggest that the secure pattern of attachment in infancy is universally considered the most desirable pattern by mothers (see van IJzendoorn & Sagi, 1999). For obvious reasons there is no similar study asking infants if they would prefer a security-inducing attachment figure. Adults seeking long-term relationships identify responsive caregiving qualities, such as attentiveness, warmth, and sensitivity, as most "attractive" in potential dating partners (Zeifman & Hazan, 1997). Despite the attractiveness of secure qualities, however, not all adults are paired with secure partners. Some evidence suggests that people end up in relationships with partners who confirm their existing beliefs about attachment relationships (Frazier et al., 1997).

Secure base and safe haven behavior

In infancy, secure infants tend to be the most well adjusted, in the sense that they are relatively resilient, they get along with their peers, and are well liked. Similar kinds of patterns have emerged in research on adult attachment. Overall, secure adults tend to be more satisfied in their relationships than insecure adults. Their relationships are characterized by greater longevity, trust, commitment, and interdependence (e.g., Feeney, Noller, & Callan, 1994), and they are more likely to use romantic partners as a secure base from which to explore the world (e.g., Fraley & Davis, 1997). A large proportion of research on adult attachment has been devoted to uncovering the behavioral and psychological mechanisms that promote security and secure base behavior in adults. There have been two major discoveries thus far. First and in accordance with attachment theory, secure adults are more likely than insecure adults to seek support from their partners when distressed. Furthermore, they are more likely to provide support to their distressed partners (e.g., Simpson et al., 1992). Second, the attributions that insecure individuals make concerning their partner's behavior during and following relational conflicts exacerbate, rather than alleviate, their insecurities (e.g., Simpson et al., 1996).

Avoidant Attachment and Defense Mechanisms

According to attachment theory, children differ in the kinds of strategies they use to regulate attachment-related anxiety. Following a separation and reunion, for example, some insecure children approach their parents, but with ambivalence and resistance, whereas others withdraw from their parents, apparently minimizing attachment-related feelings and behavior. One of the big questions in the study of infant attachment is whether children who withdraw from their parents--avoidant children--are truly less distressed or whether their defensive behavior is a cover-up for their true feelings of vulnerability. Research that has measured the attentional capacity of children, heart rate, or stress hormone levels suggests that avoidant children are distressed by the separation despite the fact that they come across in a cool, defensive manner.

Recent research on adult attachment has revealed some interesting complexities concerning the relationships between avoidance and defense. Although some avoidant adults, often called fearfully-avoidant adults, are poorly adjusted despite their defensive nature, others, often called dismissing-avoidant adults, are able to use defensive strategies in an adaptive way. For example, in an experimental task in which adults were instructed to discuss losing their partner, Fraley and Shaver (1997) found that dismissing individuals (i.e., individuals who are high on the dimension of attachment-related avoidance but low on the dimension of attachment-related anxiety) were just as physiologically distressed (as assessed by skin conductance measures) as other individuals. When instructed to suppress their thoughts and feelings, however, dismissing individuals were able to do so effectively. That is, they could deactivate their physiological arousal to some degree and minimize the attention they paid to attachment-related thoughts. Fearfully-avoidant individuals were not as successful in suppressing their emotions.

Are Attachment Patterns Stable from Infancy to Adulthood?

Perhaps the most provocative and controversial implication of adult attachment theory is that a person's attachment style as an adult is shaped by his or her interactions with parental attachment figures. Although the idea that early attachment experiences might have an influence on attachment style in romantic relationships is relatively uncontroversial, hypotheses about the source and degree of overlap between the two kinds of attachment orientations have been controversial.

There are at least two issues involved in considering the question of stability: (a) How much similarity is there between the security people experience with different people in their lives (e.g., mothers, fathers, romantic partners)? and (b) With respect to any one of these relationships, how stable is security over time?

With respect to this first issue, it appears that there is a modest degree of overlap between how secure people feel with their mothers, for example, and how secure they feel with their romantic partners. Fraley, for example, collected self-report measures of one's current attachment style with a significant parental figure and a current romantic partner and found correlations ranging between approximately .20 to .50 (i.e., small to moderate) between the two kinds of attachment relationships. [Click here to take an on-line quiz designed to assess the similarity between your attachment styles with different people in your life.]

With respect to the second issue, the stability of one's attachment to one's parents appears to be equal to a correlation of about .25 to .39 (Fraley, 2002). There is only one longitudinal study of which we are aware that assessed the link between security at age 1 in the strange situation and security of the same people 20 years later in their adult romantic relationships. This unpublished study uncovered a correlation of .17 between these two variables (Steele, Waters, Crowell, & Treboux, 1998).

The association between early attachment experiences and adult attachment styles has also been examined in retrospective studies. Hazan and Shaver (1987) found that adults who were secure in their romantic relationships were more likely to recall their childhood relationships with parents as being affectionate, caring, and accepting (see also Feeney & Noller, 1990).

Based on these kinds of studies, it seems likely that attachment styles in the child-parent domain and attachment styles in the romantic relationship domain are only moderately related at best. What are the implications of such findings for adult attachment theory? According to some writers, the most important proposition of the theory is that the attachment system, a system originally adapted for the ecology of infancy, continues to influence behavior, thought, and feeling in adulthood (see Fraley & Shaver, 2000). This proposition may hold regardless of whether individual differences in the way the system is organized remain stable over a decade or more, and stable across different kinds of intimate relationships.

Although the social and cognitive mechanisms invoked by attachment theorists imply that stability in attachment style may be the rule rather than the exception, these basic mechanisms can predict either long-run continuity or discontinuity, depending on the precise ways in which they are conceptualized (Fraley, 2002). Fraley (2002) discussed two models of continuity derived from attachment theory that make different predictions about long-term continuity even though they were derived from the same basic theoretical principles. Each model assumes that individual differences in attachment representations are shaped by variation in experiences with caregivers in early childhood, and that, in turn, these early representations shape the quality of the individual's subsequent attachment experiences. However, one model assumes that existing representations are updated and revised in light of new experiences such that older representations are eventually "overwritten." Mathematical analyses revealed that this model predicts that the long-term stability of individual differences will approach zero. The second model is similar to the first, but makes the additional assumption that representational models developed in the first year of life are preserved (i.e., they are not overwritten) and continue to influence relational behavior throughout the life course. Analyses of this model revealed that long-term stability can approach a non-zero limiting value. The important point here is that the principles of attachment theory can be used to derive developmental models that make strikingly different predictions about the long-term stability of individual differences. In light of this finding, the existence of long-term stability of individual differences should be considered an empirical question rather than an assumption of the theory.

Outstanding Questions and Future Directions for Research on Adult Attachment

There are a number of questions that current and future research on attachment needs to address. For example, it is probably the case that, while some romantic relationships are genuine attachment relationships, others are not. It will be necessary for future researchers to find ways to better determine whether a relationship is actually serving attachment-related functions. Second, although it is clear why attachment behavior may serve an important evolutionary function in infancy, it is not clear whether attachment serves an important evolutionary function among adults. Third, we still don't have a strong understanding of the precise factors that may change a person's attachment style. In the interest of improving people's lives, it will be necessary to learn more about the factors that promote attachment security and relational well-being.

To learn more about attachment theory and research, please check out the book Omri, Gery, and I wrote.

Sources

For The Negative Effects of Anxious Attachment on Intimate Relationships and How to Overcome Them

https://www.anxiety.org/anxious-attachment-how-parental-behavior-affects-adult-intimate-relationships

1. Poulsen, F. O., Holman, T. B., Busby, D. M., & Carroll, J. S. (2013). Physical attraction,

attachment styles, and dating development. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 301-319. doi: 10.1177/0265407512456673

2. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Separation: Anxiety and anger(Vol. 2). New

York: Basic Books

3. Ainsworth, M. S., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality development. American Psychologist, 46(4), 333-341.

4. Schimmenti, A., & Bifulco, A. (2015). Linking lack of care in childhood to anxiety disorders in emerging adulthood: the role of attachment styles. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 20(1), 41-48.

5. Colonnesi, C., Draijer, E. M., Jan JM Stams, G., Van der Bruggen, C. O., Bögels, S. M., & Noom, M. J. (2011). The relation between insecure attachment and child anxiety: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(4), 630-645.

6. Marganska, A., Gallagher, M., & Miranda, R. (2013). Adult attachment, emotion dysregulation, and symptoms of depression and generalized anxiety disorder. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 83(1), 131.

7. Gentzler, A. L., Kerns, K. A., & Keener, E. (2010). Emotional reactions and regulatory responses to negative and positive events: Associations with attachment and gender. Motivation and emotion, 34(1), 78-92.

8. Eng, W., Heimberg, R. G., Hart, T. A., Schneier, F. R., & Liebowitz, M. R. (2001). Attachment in individuals with social anxiety disorder: the relationship among adult attachment styles, social anxiety, and depression. Emotion, 1(4), 365.

9. Kruger, D. J., Fisher, M. L., Edelstein, R. S., Chopik, W. J., Fitzgerald, C. J., & Strout, S. L. (2013). Was that cheating? Perceptions vary by sex, attachment anxiety, and behavior. Evolutionary Psychology, 11,159–171.

10. Barbaro, N., Pham, M. N., Shackelford, T. K., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2016). Insecure romantic attachment dimensions and frequency of mate retention behaviors. Personal Relationships, 23(3), 605-618. doi:10.1111/pere.12146

11. Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York, NY: Basic Books.

12. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford Press.

13. Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2003). Physical, emotional, and behavioral reactions to breaking up: The roles of gender, age, emotional involvement, and attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 871–884.