Attachment theory is a theory of human development first developed by British psychologists John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth in the 1950s and 60s. Bowlby and Ainsworth observed the ways infants attached to their primary caregivers and organized their emotional experiences based on the caregiver’s behaviors. An infant may develop an “anxious” pattern of relating in response to cues from the environment that it will not get its needs met. Alternatively, an infant may develop an “avoidant” style of relating if it has grown accustomed to being disappointed and therefore withdraws from closeness. The child’s genetic makeup and other variables play a role in which attachment patterns they develop.

Bowlby and Ainsworth’s understanding of infant attachment was a significant contribution to our knowledge of human development, emotion, and personality. However, their original ideas on attachment have been distorted and generalized in ways that are unhelpful when applied to adult personality and relationships.

Misconception #1: We have only one attachment “style”

The idea that adults fall into neat categories such as “anxious,” “avoidant” or “secure” is too simplistic. Issues around anxiety, avoidance, and security are present in every person. Someone who describes themselves as having an “anxious” attachment style might feel clingy or dependent in romantic relationships, yet their seemingly “avoidant” partner may be just as dependent and anxious, but in less obvious ways. It’s possible that the avoidant partner feels a sense of security from having someone depend on them, while consciously experiencing the dependency as suffocating. Sometimes a “clingy” person in one relationship wants more distance in a different relationship; and an avoidant person in one relationship may become anxious in another (or in the same relationship based on circumstances, such as the birth of children, an infidelity, job loss, etc.).

Applying attachment styles to adults in such a rigid way causes us to see human personality one-dimensionally. After all, we are not the babies that Bowlby and Ainsworth were observing. Instead, we are all complex human beings, and tend to have conflicted yearnings both for safety and risk, dependency and freedom. Someone with a seemingly anxious attachment style may be disconnected from another part of themselves which craves freedom and autonomy. Similarly, an avoidant person might be disconnected from the part of themselves that longs to depend on someone. If we feel we fit consistently into only an anxious or avoidant pattern of relating to others, it might reflect that significant aspects of ourselves are disconnected or dissociated from our conscious experience. Intimate relationships likely pose a threat to revealing these warded off aspects of ourselves.

Misconception #2: Finding a secure partner is the best way to become secure yourself

In a number of books and pop psychology articles on attachment in recent decades, anxious or avoidant personalities are encouraged to simply find a “secure” person to whom they can attach. The idea is that by hitting the love lottery and finding this secure person, your needs will be met consistently enough for a long enough period that you will come to develop a secure attachment style yourself. While it’s true that finding a caring and respectful partner can only help one’s chances of having a fulfilling relationship, the idea of finding a partner more secure than ourselves might play into our fantasies of being rescued or saved, as well as our core beliefs that we are damaged.

Seeing your partner as more “secure” than you is liable to create a power imbalance in the relationship, with both partners agreeing that one is the “healthy” one, while the other is the “damaged” one. This could also reinforce the “secure” partner’s desire to be seen as healthy and normal, and to therefore not have to risk revealing insecure aspects of themselves that they are ashamed of. In family systems theory, the so-called “unhealthy” family member is known as the “identified patient.” In truth, the identified patient is not any worse off than any other member of the family, they are just the one who exhibits the symptoms of larger family issues. This allows other members of the family to engage in a sort of collective gaslighting, avoiding having to see themselves as contributors to the dysfunctional patterns. Viewing ourselves and others in a more human light, acknowledging both strengths and limitations, helps to put our relationships on equal footing.

Misconception #3: “Getting your needs met” is always beneficial

Some of the common messaging around attachment styles relates to the importance of finding someone who can “meet your needs.” Depending on how you define it, getting your needs met is not always beneficial. As a disclaimer, I am not referring to needs related to core values or basic respect. Every person is entitled to being treated in respectful ways, free from physical or psychological harm. In addition, relationships that are fundamentally incompatible, such as one person wanting to be monogamous and another person wanting to have multiple partners, are not likely to be satisfying for either person.

But other “needs” include the belief that our romantic partners are obligated to agree with us, prioritize us in every situation, take our side in every dispute, spend the majority of their time with us, emotionally soothe us, give us unlimited freedom, tolerate us coming home whenever we want, promise to never leave us, etc. Some of these expectations are rooted in unmet childhood longings for unconditional love, validation, or freedom. While our adult relationships should offer love and support, they can never make up for what we might not have received as children. A tolerable amount of disappointment and frustration can be useful to help us recognize that our partner is a separate person who also wants to be free to be themselves.

Other ways of thinking about attachment:

British Psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott, a contemporary of Bowlby’s, said of couples who are very attached to one another: “if they are afraid to leave each other, they are liable to get bored with each other.” Winnicott’s meaning of “bored” implied a drain on our creativity. If human relatedness is based in fear or compliance, argued Winnicott, it restricts the freedom to act and behave in ways that are spontaneous and creative, which are essential in order to feel “real.” Winnicott believed the capacity to be creative and authentic–and therefore real–is the mark of psychological health, in life and in relationships.

In an essay from his book Home is Where We Start From, Winnicott uses the example of a married couple he knew who spent the first week of their two-week summer vacation together and the second week apart. The husband went off sailing, the wife went off traveling. This relationship was viewed by others as flawed because of the couple’s desire for time apart, but Winnicott pointed out that it was quite a satisfying marriage for the two people precisely because it allowed for both togetherness and separateness, which was something both spouses valued.

Pioneering marriage and family therapist, Dr. David Schnarch, warned about how too great a focus on attachment can lead to a relationship dominated by unmet childhood needs: “We’ve eliminated from marriage those things that fuel our essential drives for autonomy and freedom. It becomes a trap that actually prevents us from growing up. Instead of infantilizing us, marriage can — and must — become the cradle of adult development.”

Individual or couples psychotherapy can be one way of better understanding ourselves, both our vulnerabilities and our strengths, and how these play out in our relationships with others. By understanding our patterns of relating to others, we can strive to create relationships that are built on authenticity and vulnerability, allowing both people to be free to be themselves. For more information on individual or couples psychotherapy, contact me.