by Jessica Fern
Insecure Attachment Styles
In this section, I will first present the three insecure styles in the typology in which they are commonly presented by other authors. However, some researchers and theorists have moved away from using the traditional four-type attachment typology, proposing instead that attachment plays out over the two dimensions of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. This two-dimensional perspective can be a more precise way of understanding the different expressions of the secure and insecure attachment styles, which I will present after the three insecure styles.
The Avoidant/Dismissive Attachment Style
Avoidant Attachment in Childhood
The avoidant and anxious styles were first observed in children by Mary Ainsworth in 1978 through her Strange Situation Procedure.17 In these experiments, infants and young children were observed with their primary attachment figure (usually the mother) in a room filled with toys. Each child was at times alone with their parent in the room, then left alone with a stranger while the parent stepped out of the room for several minutes. Of particular interest were how much the child explored the room of toys, how much anxiety the child felt when left alone with the stranger and how the child responded to first being separated and then reunited with their parent. The child’s response to separation and reunion became the primary way of assessing secure and insecure attachment.
Children with a secure attachment were observed as comfortable exploring the room of toys while their parents were present, at ease interacting with strangers when parents were present and then expressing healthy attachment distress when their parents left the room, followed by relief and comfort when their parents returned.
The children who were classified with the avoidant attachment pattern were observed as being distant from their caretakers, showing little to no distress upon separation, expressing little interest in the parents upon reunion, and even showing little preference for being with their parents versus the stranger. These children were less likely to explore the room of toys and often preferred to play by themselves. Interestingly, the seemingly unaffected demeanor of these children, who were physically and emotionally distant from their caretakers, did not reflect their internal state. Even though these children appeared “fine” on the outside, they were actually experiencing internal signs of elevated heart rate and physiological stress.
A child who had parents who were mostly unavailable, neglectful or absent adapted to their attachment environment by taking on a more avoidant style. Parenting that is cold, distant, critical or highly focused on achievement or appearance can create an environment where the child learns that they are better off relying on themselves. When a child does not get enough of the positive attachment responses that they need or they are outright rejected or criticized for having needs, they will adapt by shutting down and deactivating their attachment longings. A child in this scenario learns that, in order to survive, they need to inhibit their attachment bids for proximity or protection in order to prevent the pain and confusion of neglect or rejection. In this situation a child often learns to subsist on emotional crumbs, assuming that the best way to get their needs met by their parent is to act as if they don’t have any. In adulthood, having a deactivated attachment system includes not only minimizing one’s own bids for care and attention, but also having a diminished ability to pick up on and register attachment cues from others.
Some of the different factors that can contribute to a child adopting an avoidant attachment style are:18
Isolation through too much time alone or not enough face-to-face time with parents.
The absence of physical or emotional presence from caretakers.
Too much emphasis on task-based presence. That is, where caregivers are only present when they are trying to educate or teach something to their child that is practical, academic or skills-based.
Too little touch and affection, or what Diane Poole Heller calls “skin hunger.”
Emotional neglect where emotional nourishment is low or absent and parents are unable to effectively read the child’s signals. Such parents might respond in insensitive ways or be completely unresponsive to the child’s emotional states and needs.
Expressive dissonance, which is when someone’s facial or verbal expressions are mismatched with their emotional states. Someone might be laughing when they are angry or smiling when they are actually upset, which can be confusing to children (or anyone for that matter). Since children are learning how to identify and express their own emotional states through the modeling of the adults around them, a parent with expressive dissonance can create challenges in their child’s ability to understand others’ feelings and to express themselves in ways that are socially appropriate and authentic.
Disrupted engagement with caretakers due to illnesses or other factors that interfere with either the child or the parent participating in bonding attachment behaviors (see the nested attachment model in Chapter Three).
Rejection from parents that might be ongoing, subtle or even outright abandonment of the child and parental responsibilities.
Parents who are overly strict and controlling.
Parents who might have the best intentions, but have a child who is so different from them that they are unable to understand or connect with that child in attuned ways.
Dismissive Attachment as an Adult
In adulthood, the childhood avoidant style is referred to as dismissive. A person who is functioning from a dismissive style will tend to keep people at arm’s length. Usually priding themselves on not needing anyone, people with this style will tend to take on an overly self-reliant outlook, valuing their hyper-independence and often seeing others as weak, needy or too dependent. Although they may present as having high self-esteem, people functioning from a dismissive attachment style often project unwanted traits onto others and inflate their sense of self to cover a relatively negative self-image. People with this attachment style have reported lower levels of relationship satisfaction, trust and commitment,19 as well as having more negative views about sex and lower levels of sexual satisfaction when married.20
A person with a dismissive attachment style likely didn’t get what they needed early in life from their primary caregivers, so they learned to get by and survive by needing little to nothing from others. When someone grows up in a home with minimal or no emotional nourishment, it makes sense that they would deemphasize the value and importance of relationships, and that they find it extremely difficult to be vulnerable and open with others. Oftentimes, their own painful emotions or experiences are placed below the radar of their emotional awareness in order to avoid the discomfort of feeling pain. This in turn creates a disconnection from their own feelings and needs. Living with a sense of chronic disconnection from themselves, others and the world, they might at times experience the longing to be close, but then feel at a total loss as to how the bridge the gap between their isolation and others, missing opportunities to receive support from their partners or to provide care to their loved ones.
People in this attachment style do want relationships. They will enter into relationships, even long-term relationships, but may struggle with their ability to reflect on their own internal experience as well as sensitively respond to the signals of their partners. They usually find it difficult to tolerate emotions related to intimacy, conflict and different forms of emotional intensity. When someone who is functioning in this style either feels vulnerable or perceives vulnerability in their partner, they will distance themselves to avoid discomfort. Signs of potential rejection or criticism from others will also create a quick withdrawal.
People with the dismissive attachment style will also tend to be highly linear and logical, showing many forms of competence and ability in the practical or professional realms of life. This overdevelopment of the logical brain can also create challenges with certain aspects of autobiographical memory—people with a dismissive attachment style might have little memory for childhood experi
ences, as well as simplistic narratives about their parents and childhood being “just fine.”21
In my therapy practice, I often notice that people who are relating from the dismissive style initially describe their parents or current romantic relationships as being great, even ideal, but just a few minutes of deeper questioning into their actual childhood experiences or current relational patterns reveals that things aren’t actually so perfect. This occurs because the deactivation of their attachment system has made it difficult for them to access and consistently stay in touch with their true feelings. For many, contacting and admitting one’s actual feelings might be perceived as a threat to their current relationship or to the status quo of their family of origin.
Part of this deactivating and distancing adaptation is the dissociation from lived experience. When someone with a dismissive style starts to work on healing their insecure attachment, they must begin by no longer dismissing and distancing from themselves. This requires that they no longer deny their desires and needs, allowing the longings and wants for connection that have for so long been forbidden. When someone functioning from a dismissive style starts to allow their attachment system to come back online, it can initially be a very tender, raw and even overwhelming process. The skills that come with being able to identify your own feelings are part of a developmental process that takes time. The process of allowing feelings as they arise, learning how to self-soothe and establishing an inner trust that experiencing feelings is safe, cannot be rushed.
For the dismissive style, the journey from insecure to secure attachment is one of returning to the body through bringing feelings and sensations back to life and learning how to be with oneself in this process. Once this is established, the risk of then leaning into others, revealing one’s internal world, and dismantling the self-reliant exoskeleton through asking for help and care from others can begin.
Statements that someone with a dismissive attachment style might make:
My autonomy, independence and self-sufficiency are very important to me.
I am generally comfortable without close relationships and do well on my own.
I want to be in relationships and have some closeness with people, but I can only tolerate closeness to a limit and then I need space.
I prefer not to share my feelings or show a partner how I feel deep down.
I frequently don’t know what I’m feeling or needing and/or I can miss cues from others about what they are feeling or needing.
I feel uncomfortable relying on partners and having partners depend or rely on me.
I either struggle with making relationship commitments or if I do commit, I may secretly have one foot out the door (or at least have the back door unlocked).
I am very sensitive to any signs that my partner is trying to control me or interfere with my freedom in any way (and I don’t like the word “sensitive”).
I see myself or others as weak for having needs or wanting comfort, help or reassurance.
During disagreements or in conflict I tend to withdraw, shut down, shut out or stonewall.
I do well with the transition from being together with people to then being alone again, but once I’ve been alone for a while I can be slow to warm up to others or struggle with the transition from being alone to entering back into connection with someone.
The Anxious/Preoccupied Attachment Style
Anxious Attachment in Childhood
In Ainsworth’s Strange Situation Procedure, children who were classified as being anxiously attached were reluctant to play with the toys in the room even when their parent was present. They showed signs of distress and clinginess even before their parent left the room and struggled to settle down upon reunion with their caregiver. For these children, the attachment system was hyperactivated, in comparison to the deactivating of the attachment system that the avoidant style employs. Hyperactivating the attachment system ramps up the desire for a caretaker, amplifying the child’s attachment bids as a way to capture a parent’s attention.
Parents who are loving but inconsistent can encourage the adaptation of the anxious style. Sometimes the parent is here and available, attuned and responsive, but then other times they are emotionally unavailable, mis-attuned or even intrusive, leaving the child confused and uncertain as to whether their parent is going to comfort them, ignore them, reward them or punish them for the very same behavior. This unpredictability can be very dys-regulating for a child who is trying to stabilize a bond with their caregiver so, in an attempt to cope, they then learn that hyperactivating their attachment system through getting louder or needier achieves the attention they need. In this scenario, the child can become dependent on their hyperactivating strategy in order to survive, fearing that if they let their attachment system settle and rest then their needs will never be met. This in turn can lead to a chronically activated attachment system that exaggerates threats of potential abandonment, which may or may not actually be there.22
Some factors that can contribute to a child adopting an anxious insecure attachment style are:23
Parents who are unable to consistently co-regulate with their child, which leaves the child dependent on others to regulate their emotions, again and again turning outward to make sense of their inner feelings and unable to emotionally regulate on their own.
Over-involving the child in the parent’s state of mind, where the parent’s emotions or state of mind is more central to the parent-child interaction than the child’s. In this case, the child might be asked (whether explicitly or implicitly) to be responsible for meeting the parent’s needs, making the parent feel better or supplying the parent with meaning and purpose. This is often due to a parent’s own level of anxiety, stress or unresolved trauma, or their own anxious attachment history. When the state of mind of the parent is the centerpiece of interactions, the child is left to constantly monitor and be concerned about their parent’s state of well-being, which can encourage a role reversal in which the child is acting more like the parent in the relationship. As a child, being responsible for a parent’s well-being is a misplaced, confusing and overwhelming responsibility.
Overstimulation. We live in an increasingly stimulating world, with fewer spaces to rest physically and mentally between interactions with people, technology, billboards, ads and the like. Our nervous systems need breaks from such stimulation in order to develop properly, and parents can impede this process when they force constant contact, require attention or presence from a child that might be beyond their developmental capacity, hover over the child, interject themselves when the child is calmly playing independently or enjoying time with others, or even push physical boundaries through tickling or affection that is unwanted by the child in that particular moment.
Parents who discourage autonomy. Some parents discourage their child’s agency and autonomy through comments or suggestions that insinuate, whether subtly or overtly, that the child is incapable, less than or not enough in some way. Even well-intentioned parents can question their children’s actions and decisions in ways that are shaming instead of encouraging. Some parents who are struggling with their own anxiety can easily get overwhelmed by children who want to explore and discourage or overprotect the child in ways that undermine their interests or abilities.
Preoccupied Attachment as an Adult
When used to characterize an adult, anxious attachment is called preoccupied. People with this attachment style demonstrate an intense focus and heightened concern about the level of closeness in their relationships. A defining factor of the preoccupied style is how the person’s hyperactivated attachment strategy not only amplifies their attachment bids, but also intensifies their focus on their partners. Because of this, they may end up constantly monitoring their partners’ level of availability, interest and responsiveness. The partner of someone with a preoccupied attachment style may then feel like this constant tracking of relational misattunements and mistakes is controlling of them. But for the person with a
preoccupied attachment style, this behavior is less an attempt to overtly control their partner than it is a symptom of their attachment system being overly sensitive to even the slightest sign they might be left. From their perspective, they’re not trying to control their partner; they’re just grasping for a relationship they’re afraid is slipping out of their hands.
Hyperfocus on the other can lead to a disconnection or loss of self through over-functioning and over-adapting in the relationship in an attempt to maintain and preserve the connection. Frequently consumed by fears of abandonment, people functioning out of a preoccupied style will easily give up their own needs or sense of self, yielding to the needs or identity of their partner in order to ensure proximity and relationship security. Due to their history of unpredictable and inconsistent love, they can have considerable challenges with trusting that their partners truly love them. They may frequently fall into self-critical and self-doubting loops, questioning if they are truly worthy enough to receive their partner’s love. They often have a hard time fully taking in the love they so desperately want, even when it is given. People functioning from this style tend to jump into relationships or bond very quickly with people. Often idealizing their partners, they may confuse anxiety and intensity for being in love, hearing and seeing only what they want to see and missing potential red flags. They may not allow enough time to get to know someone beyond the honeymoon phase in order to assess if this person, and the relationship, are truly a good fit.