How We Form Attachments: The Science of Emotional Bonds and Attachment Styles

What drives our connections with the people in our lives? Why do some of us dive effortlessly into romantic relationships while others find it uncomfortable to even consider the possibility? Why do some individuals prefer to face their challenges alone, while others find comfort in sharing their burdens? Even when faced with similar circumstances, whether in romantic or platonic relationships, our responses and approaches can differ greatly. So, what is at the root of these differences?

While many explanations have been offered over time, Attachment Theory stands out as one of the most robust and widely accepted frameworks. It significantly informs our understanding of close relationships in both childhood and adulthood and is supported by a wealth of scientific evidence. Originally designed to explore the complexities of the child-parent bond, Attachment Theory has since become an important tool for studying adult relationships. At its core is the theory’s recognition that people have an innate need to seek feelings of security, comfort, and love through connections with others. As we grow up, the figures who meet these needs (initially our caregivers or parents) are often replaced by romantic partners. Our experiences with our caregivers in early childhood profoundly influence our expectations and behaviors in later relationships. As a result, many of us are drawn to relationship dynamics that mirror those we experienced with our parents, and we may find that we continue to follow similar patterns for the rest of our lives.

Early studies inspired by Attachment Theory, especially those involving one-year-olds, suggested that attachment styles generally fall into three categories: secure, anxious-ambivalent, and avoidant.

Children who are classified as securely attached may experience distress when separated from their caregivers but quickly calm down and return to normal when reunited. These children feel safe and secure in the presence of their caregivers, which encourages them to explore their surroundings and engage in independent play. Research shows that approximately 67 percent of children exhibit this secure attachment style.

In contrast, children with an anxious-ambivalent attachment style tend to be restless even when their caregivers are present. These children, unlike their securely attached peers, have difficulty exploring or playing because of a deep sense of insecurity. They become extremely anxious when separated from their caregivers and often remain irritable even after the reunion, taking longer to overcome feelings of distress. This attachment style is seen in approximately 12% of children.

On the other hand, avoidant-attached children often exhibit emotional distancing behaviors from their caregivers. They may avoid interaction even in close proximity, show little distress during separation, and show little interest in reconnecting when reunited. It is estimated that approximately 21% of children fall into this category.

As adults, our attachment patterns are better understood as a continuum rather than in rigid categories. Attachment Theory now emphasizes two basic dimensions: attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. Attachment anxiety reflects a person’s fears and anxieties about their relationships, while attachment avoidance refers to how much a person resists forming close bonds. These dimensions intersect to form four basic attachment styles. Individuals who are low in both attachment anxiety and avoidance are considered securely attached, meaning they are generally comfortable with closeness and do not avoid seeking or providing support. In contrast, those with high attachment anxiety but low avoidance fall into the anxious category, often fearing rejection while simultaneously seeking intense closeness. People who show low anxiety but high avoidance are placed in the avoidant category, where they prefer emotional distance and self-reliance. Finally, those who show both high anxiety and high avoidance belong to the fearful-avoidant category, where the desire for closeness is balanced by a fear of vulnerability, making it difficult to form or maintain close relationships.

Attachment Spectrum

To better understand the attachment styles we have discussed, it is useful to examine the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral aspects that underlie them. Cognitively, securely attached individuals generally have a positive outlook on trust and believe that others are likely to meet their expectations of closeness. In contrast, those with anxious or avoidant attachment styles often harbor deep doubts about the trustworthiness and credibility of others.

Emotionally, securely attached individuals have a strong sense of security, knowing that there is someone they can turn to when they need it. This trust allows them to navigate social interactions with ease and stability. On the other hand, those with high attachment anxiety often experience persistent fears about their relationships and the worry that others may not be there for them when they need them. Those with high attachment avoidance tend to experience negative emotions such as anger and discomfort in social situations and often limit their interactions with others to protect themselves from vulnerability.

Behaviorally, securely attached individuals generally maintain healthy communication with loved ones, actively seeking and offering support when needed. In contrast, people with high attachment anxiety may exhibit behaviors such as constant reassurance seeking or reacting angrily when their needs are not met. Meanwhile, people with avoidant attachment tend to withdraw from social interactions, relying on themselves rather than seeking help from others.

Attachment styles profoundly affect our ability to establish and maintain commitment and closeness in relationships. People who are securely attached often develop these aspects of a relationship with ease and form a strong, stable bond. In contrast, people who are anxiously attached may rush into closeness and commitment, sometimes oversharing personal information in order to secure the relationship early on. However, those with avoidant attachment styles may hesitate to commit, preferring to keep others at a distance to avoid the discomfort of vulnerability.

In essence, attachment styles play a critical role in shaping how we relate to others, especially in close relationships. The patterns we establish in our early years continue to influence us throughout our lives, affecting how we connect with those we care about. While it is possible for our attachment style to evolve over time, this process requires conscious effort and is often difficult.

In short, our attachment styles serve as a blueprint for how we navigate relationships throughout our lives, affecting everything from our ability to trust others to how we handle intimacy and commitment. While these patterns are deeply rooted in our early experiences, they are not set in stone. With self-awareness and conscious effort, it is possible to reshape these attachment styles, paving the way for healthier, more fulfilling relationships.

Understanding and working with our attachment style isn’t just about improving our romantic relationships; it’s about cultivating all the connections that enrich our lives.

References:

• Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment: Assessed in the Strange Situations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

• Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

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

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

• Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 35 (pp. 53-152). Elsevier Academic Press.