Attachment Theory in Early Years Psychology

Key Takeaways

• Attachment Types: Secure, Anxious, Avoidant, and Disorganised attachment styles develop in early childhood and significantly influence relationship patterns.
• Neurobiological Foundation: Early attachment experiences directly shape brain development, particularly structures involved in emotional regulation, stress response, and social connection.
• Protective Factor: Secure attachment serves as a significant protective factor against psychological difficulties, while insecure attachment increases vulnerability to various mental health challenges.
• Lifespan perspective: Attachment patterns can change throughout life through significant relationships, therapeutic interventions, and increased self-awareness, allowing for the development of “earned security” regardless of early experiences.

Download this Article as a PDF

Download this article as a PDF so you can revisit it whenever you want. We’ll email you a download link.

You’ll also get notification of our FREE Early Years TV videos each week and our exclusive special offers.

Get your PDF Download and FREE Early Years TV Updates

Introduction to Attachment Theory

What is Attachment Theory?

Attachment theory is a psychological framework that explains how individuals form and maintain emotional bonds with others, particularly during early childhood. Developed by British psychiatrist John Bowlby in the 1950s, the theory proposes that the quality of early relationships between infants and their primary caregivers significantly influences social and emotional development throughout life (Bowlby, 1969). This foundational theory suggests that humans are biologically predisposed to form attachments with caregivers as a survival mechanism, creating a secure base from which children can explore the world.

The theory was further expanded by Mary Ainsworth, whose groundbreaking “Strange Situation” experiments identified distinct patterns of attachment behaviour in children (Ainsworth, 1978). These patterns, or attachment styles, reflect different ways children learn to manage their emotions and relationships based on their caregivers’ responsiveness.

• Attachment refers to the emotional bond between an infant and caregiver that provides the child with a sense of security and safety
• Internal working models develop from these early relationships and serve as templates for future relationships
• Attachment behaviours are actions aimed at maintaining proximity to attachment figures, especially in times of distress

Real-World Relevance to Relationships and Mental Health

The significance of attachment theory extends far beyond the Early Years. Research consistently demonstrates that early attachment patterns influence:

• Adult romantic relationships and partner selection
• Parenting approaches and intergenerational patterns
• Workplace relationships and leadership styles
• Responses to stress and emotional regulation
• Vulnerability to mental health conditions

A longitudinal study by Sroufe (2005) found that early attachment security predicted social competence, emotional regulation, and resilience in adolescence and early adulthood. Individuals with secure attachment histories typically demonstrate greater relationship satisfaction, more effective coping mechanisms, and lower rates of psychological distress compared to those with insecure attachment patterns.

In clinical settings, attachment theory informs therapeutic approaches for treating relationship difficulties, anxiety disorders, depression, and complex trauma. The theory provides a framework for understanding how early relational experiences shape our expectations of others and ourselves, influencing how we perceive, interpret, and respond to social interactions throughout life.

Why Understanding Attachment Matters

Understanding attachment patterns offers valuable insights into many aspects of human behaviour. According to research by the Mental Health Foundation (2016), approximately 40% of the UK population exhibits insecure attachment patterns, which are associated with increased risk for relationship difficulties and mental health challenges.

This matters because:

• Early attachment relationships form the foundation for emotional and social development
• Attachment styles influence how we manage stress, regulate emotions, and seek support
• Recognising one’s attachment patterns can facilitate personal growth and relationship improvement
• For parents and professionals working with children, understanding attachment principles can guide effective caregiving practices

The good news is that attachment patterns, while relatively stable, are not permanently fixed. Through supportive relationships, self-awareness, and sometimes therapeutic intervention, individuals can develop more secure attachment orientations over time (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

By understanding the science of attachment, we gain valuable insights into ourselves and our relationships, creating opportunities for healthier connections and improved well-being across the lifespan.

The History and Development of Attachment Theory

John Bowlby’s Pioneering Research

The foundations of attachment theory were laid by British psychiatrist and psychoanalyst John Bowlby, whose work in the mid-20th century marked a significant departure from prevailing psychoanalytic thinking. Born in London in 1907, Bowlby’s interest in the importance of early relationships was initially sparked by his work with maladjusted children at the London Child Guidance Clinic during the 1930s (Bretherton, 1992).

Bowlby’s formative research experience came during his work at the Tavistock Clinic after World War II, where he observed the profound effects of maternal separation on children’s development. His 1944 paper, “Forty-Four Juvenile Thieves,” documented how disrupted maternal relationships in early childhood were associated with later delinquent behaviour (Bowlby, 1944). This early work laid the groundwork for his revolutionary thinking about the nature of the child-caregiver bond.

In contrast to the dominant psychoanalytic view that children’s attachments to caregivers were primarily driven by physiological needs like hunger (secondary drive theory), Bowlby proposed that attachment was a primary biological drive essential for survival. Drawing from evolutionary biology, ethology, and control systems theory, he formulated a comprehensive theory published in his trilogy “Attachment and Loss” (1969, 1973, 1980).

Bowlby’s evolutionary perspective posited that:

• Attachment behaviours evolved to ensure infant survival by maintaining proximity to protective caregivers
• The attachment system is biologically programmed, similar to imprinting in other species
• Children are born with an innate tendency to form attachments, regardless of whether physical needs are met
• Early attachment experiences form “internal working models” that guide future relationships

Bowlby’s theoretical framework represented a paradigm shift in understanding child development, suggesting that the quality of early care had profound implications for later psychological functioning and relationship formation.

Mary Ainsworth’s Empirical Contributions

While Bowlby provided the theoretical foundation, it was Mary Ainsworth who supplied the empirical evidence that would solidify attachment theory’s scientific credibility. Ainsworth, an American-Canadian developmental psychologist, began collaborating with Bowlby at the Tavistock Clinic in the 1950s before conducting her own groundbreaking research.

Ainsworth’s initial field studies in Uganda (1967) involved detailed observations of mother-infant interactions in natural settings. These studies identified patterns of secure and insecure attachment and highlighted the importance of maternal sensitivity in determining attachment quality. Her subsequent Baltimore study further developed these concepts through meticulous home observations (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970).

However, Ainsworth’s most significant contribution was the development of the “Strange Situation” procedure—a laboratory-based assessment that revealed individual differences in attachment behaviour. This standardised procedure involved a series of separations and reunions between infants (aged 12-18 months) and their caregivers, as well as interactions with an unfamiliar adult.

Based on children’s responses during this procedure, Ainsworth identified three distinct attachment patterns:

• Secure attachment (Type B): Children used their caregiver as a secure base, showed distress when separated, but were easily comforted upon reunion
• Anxious-ambivalent attachment (Type C): Children displayed heightened distress during separation and ambivalent behaviour (seeking contact while showing resistance) upon reunion
• Avoidant attachment (Type A): Children showed minimal distress during separation and actively avoided or ignored the caregiver upon reunion

A fourth pattern, disorganised attachment (Type D), was later identified by Main and Solomon (1986) to describe children who showed contradictory, confused, or fearful behaviours during reunions.

The Strange Situation procedure remains the gold standard for assessing attachment in young children and has generated thousands of studies across diverse cultural contexts, confirming the universal nature of attachment whilst acknowledging cultural variations in expressions of attachment behaviour.

Timeline of Key Developments in Attachment Research

Attachment theory has continued to evolve since Bowlby and Ainsworth’s seminal work, with important theoretical expansions, methodological innovations, and applications across multiple domains. The following timeline highlights significant milestones in attachment research:

• 1940s: Bowlby observes the effects of maternal deprivation on institutionalised children and juvenile delinquents
• 1950s: Bowlby presents his paper “The Nature of the Child’s Tie to His Mother” to the British Psychoanalytic Society (1958), challenging psychoanalytic views
• 1960s: Ainsworth conducts her Uganda studies (1967), developing the concept of the “secure base”
• 1969-1980: Bowlby publishes his definitive trilogy “Attachment and Loss”
• 1970s: Ainsworth introduces the Strange Situation procedure and identifies three attachment patterns (1978)
• 1980s: Main and Solomon identify disorganised attachment (1986); development of the Adult Attachment Interview by George, Kaplan, and Main (1985)
• 1990s: Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) propose a four-category model of adult attachment styles; expansion of attachment research to adult romantic relationships by Hazan and Shaver (1987)
• 2000s: Integration of neuroscience and attachment theory; Schore’s (2001) research on the neurobiological basis of attachment
• 2010s: Growth of attachment-based interventions, including Circle of Security (Powell et al., 2014) and Emotionally Focused Therapy (Johnson, 2019)
• 2020s: Increased focus on cultural variations, trauma-informed applications, and technological influences on attachment formation

Throughout its development, attachment theory has maintained remarkable theoretical coherence while expanding to incorporate new research findings from neuroscience, genetics, and cross-cultural studies. As noted by Cassidy and Shaver (2016) in their comprehensive handbook, few psychological theories have demonstrated such longevity and cross-disciplinary influence.

The enduring significance of attachment theory lies in its capacity to explain how early relational experiences shape development across the lifespan, influencing not only childhood outcomes but also adult relationships, mental health, and even intergenerational patterns of caregiving.

The Four Attachment Styles Explained

Attachment styles represent distinct patterns of relating to others that develop in early childhood and often persist into adulthood. These patterns reflect our internal working models of relationships—our expectations about how others will respond to our needs and how worthy we are of care and attention. While initially identified in children, researchers have established that these patterns continue to influence our relationships throughout life (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Secure Attachment: The Foundation of Healthy Relationships

Secure attachment develops when caregivers consistently respond to a child’s needs with sensitivity and appropriate emotional attunement. These children learn that they can rely on others for support whilst maintaining a sense of independence and self-efficacy.

Children with secure attachment typically display the following characteristics:

• Appropriate distress when separated from caregivers
• Clear happiness upon reunion
• Comfort seeking when distressed, with the ability to be soothed
• Confidence in exploring their environment when caregivers are present

According to research by Sroufe et al. (2005), secure attachment in childhood is associated with numerous positive developmental outcomes, including:

• Greater emotional regulation and resilience
• Higher social competence and peer acceptance
• Better academic performance
• More positive self-concept
• Lower rates of psychological difficulties

In adulthood, securely attached individuals generally experience more satisfying relationships. They can form close bonds without excessive anxiety or avoidance, communicate effectively about emotions, and navigate conflicts constructively. Research indicates that approximately 55-65% of the general population displays secure attachment patterns (Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2009).

The development of secure attachment is facilitated by what Ainsworth termed “sensitive responsiveness”—a caregiver’s ability to perceive, interpret, and respond appropriately to a child’s signals. This doesn’t require perfect parenting, but rather what Winnicott (1971) called “good enough” caregiving, characterised by attunement and repair after inevitable ruptures in the relationship.

Anxious Attachment: The Quest for Closeness

Anxious attachment (also called anxious-ambivalent or preoccupied attachment) develops when caregiving is inconsistent, unpredictable, or intermittently responsive. Children with this attachment style learn that attention and care are available but not reliably so, leading to heightened attachment behaviours and emotional displays.

Key characteristics of anxious attachment include:

• Intense distress upon separation from caregivers
• Difficulty being soothed upon reunion
• Ambivalent responses—seeking contact whilst displaying anger or resistance
• Limited exploration due to preoccupation with caregiver availability

In adulthood, anxiously attached individuals often experience relationships characterised by:

• Hypervigilance to signs of rejection or abandonment
• Strong desire for closeness and reassurance
• Tendency to become overly dependent in relationships
• Emotional reactivity and amplification of negative emotions
• Relationship anxiety and frequent worries about partner commitment

Research by Cassidy and Kobak (1988) suggests that anxious attachment involves a “hyperactivation” of the attachment system—an intensification of proximity-seeking and emotional expression designed to secure attention from inconsistent caregivers. These individuals have often learned that mild signals of distress may be ignored, but dramatic expressions receive response.

The prevalence of anxious attachment in adult populations is estimated at 15-20%, although rates vary considerably across cultures and demographic groups (Schmitt, 2008). Interestingly, anxious attachment appears to be more common in societies with higher levels of economic uncertainty and resource scarcity.

Avoidant Attachment: Independence as Defence

Avoidant attachment (also termed dismissive-avoidant in adults) typically develops when caregivers are consistently unresponsive, rejecting, or uncomfortable with emotional closeness. Children with this attachment style learn to suppress their attachment needs and develop precocious self-reliance.

Characteristic behaviours include:

• Minimal visible distress during separation from caregivers
• Avoidance or ignoring of caregivers upon reunion
• Limited comfort-seeking when distressed
• Preference for independent exploration over social interaction

Main (1990) described avoidant attachment as involving “defensive exclusion” of attachment-related information—a strategy to minimise the pain of rejection by deactivating the attachment system. This pattern continues into adulthood, where avoidantly attached individuals typically:

• Prioritise self-reliance and independence
• Demonstrate discomfort with emotional intimacy
• Suppress or deny attachment needs
• Distance themselves during conflict or emotional vulnerability
• Minimise the importance of close relationships

Research by Mikulincer and Shaver (2007) indicates that this apparent self-sufficiency often masks unconscious attachment needs. Under cognitive load or significant stress, avoidant defences may break down, revealing underlying attachment insecurity. Physiological studies show that avoidantly attached individuals often experience physical stress responses during relational challenges, despite appearing emotionally detached (Diamond et al., 2006).

Approximately 20-25% of adults display avoidant attachment patterns, with higher rates typically found in industrialised Western societies that emphasise individualism and self-reliance (van IJzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008).

Disorganised Attachment: When Connection Becomes Confusing

Disorganised attachment (termed fearful-avoidant in adults) represents the most concerning pattern and is strongly associated with childhood trauma, abuse, or severe neglect. It develops when the caregiver, who should be a source of safety, is simultaneously a source of fear or overwhelming distress.

Children with disorganised attachment display contradictory behaviours that lack a coherent strategy:

• Freezing or appearing dazed during interactions
• Contradictory behaviours (approaching whilst looking away)
• Stereotyped movements or unusual postures
• Fear responses toward caregivers

Main and Hesse (1990) proposed that disorganised attachment results from an irresolvable paradox: the child’s biological drive to seek comfort from the caregiver conflicts with fear of that same person. This creates a profound approach-avoidance dilemma where neither proximity-seeking nor avoidance can resolve the child’s distress.

In adulthood, individuals with disorganised/fearful-avoidant attachment often experience:

• Significant difficulties with emotional regulation
• Conflicted desires for closeness coupled with intense fear of rejection
• Chaotic or volatile relationships
• Higher rates of dissociative experiences
• Increased vulnerability to mental health conditions, particularly trauma-related disorders

Disorganised attachment occurs in approximately 15-20% of children in low-risk samples but at much higher rates (up to 80%) in high-risk populations with histories of maltreatment or parental mental illness (Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 2008). This pattern is particularly concerning because it represents the strongest developmental risk factor for later psychopathology.

Research by Liotti (2004) has highlighted connections between disorganised attachment and dissociative disorders, suggesting that the unresolvable approach-avoidance conflicts of early attachment relationships may fragment the developing sense of self.

Measuring Your Attachment Style

Understanding your own attachment patterns can provide valuable insights into relationship tendencies and emotional responses. While formal assessment typically requires structured interviews or validated questionnaires administered by trained professionals, several key indicators can help identify attachment tendencies:

Secure Attachment Indicators:

• Comfort with emotional intimacy and interdependence
• Trust in relationship partners
• Effective communication during conflict
• Positive view of self and others
• Resilience after relationship disappointments

Anxious Attachment Indicators:

• Worry about partner availability or commitment
• Need for frequent reassurance
• Tendency to ruminate on relationship concerns
• Strong fear of rejection or abandonment
• Difficulty trusting partner’s intentions

Avoidant Attachment Indicators:

• Discomfort with dependency or emotional closeness
• Preference for self-reliance over seeking support
• Tendency to withdraw during emotional situations
• Difficulty sharing feelings or vulnerabilities
• Valuing independence over relationship needs

Disorganised/Fearful-Avoidant Indicators:

• Simultaneous desire for and fear of close relationships
• Unpredictable responses to intimacy
• Difficulty regulating emotions in relationships
• Chaotic relationship history
• Substantial relationship anxiety coupled with avoidance

It’s important to note that attachment patterns exist on a continuum rather than as discrete categories. Many individuals display a predominant style with elements of others, and attachment patterns can vary somewhat across different relationships (Fraley et al., 2015). Moreover, attachment styles can change through significant relationships, therapeutic interventions, and increased self-awareness.

Valid assessment tools include the Adult Attachment Interview (George et al., 1996), which examines the coherence of attachment narratives, and self-report measures like the Experiences in Close Relationships scale (Brennan et al., 1998), which assesses dimensions of attachment anxiety and avoidance.

Understanding these patterns offers a framework for personal growth and relationship development. By recognising our attachment tendencies, we can begin to understand reactive patterns, challenge unhelpful beliefs about relationships, and develop more secure ways of connecting with others.

The Science Behind Attachment Formation

The formation of attachment bonds represents a fascinating intersection of biology, psychology, and social experience. Recent advances in neuroscience, developmental psychology, and epigenetics have significantly deepened our understanding of how these vital emotional connections develop and become encoded in both brain architecture and behavioural patterns.

Neurobiological Basis of Attachment

The human brain develops in a use-dependent manner, meaning that experiences—particularly early relational experiences—directly influence neural development. According to Schore (2001), attachment relationships play a crucial role in shaping the developing brain, particularly the right hemisphere which is dominant for emotional processing, stress regulation, and social cognition during the first three years of life.

Several key brain structures and systems are intimately involved in attachment formation:

• The limbic system, particularly the amygdala and hippocampus, processes emotional information and encodes emotional memories associated with caregivers
• The prefrontal cortex develops in response to caregiver interactions and is vital for emotional regulation and social understanding
• The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis regulates stress responses and is calibrated through early caregiving experiences
• The oxytocin system facilitates bonding, with oxytocin released during positive social interactions and physical touch

Research by Tottenham (2012) demonstrates that early caregiving experiences directly influence amygdala development and reactivity. Children with histories of secure attachment typically display well-modulated amygdala responses to emotional stimuli, while those with attachment disruptions often show heightened reactivity or atypical response patterns.

Perhaps most compelling is the research on the neurochemistry of attachment. The neuropeptide oxytocin, often called the “bonding hormone,” plays a central role in attachment formation. Feldman et al. (2007) found that oxytocin levels in both mothers and infants increase during sensitive, synchronous interactions. This neurochemical facilitates social recognition, reduces anxiety, promotes trust, and supports the formation of social memories—all essential components of secure attachment.

Porges’ (2011) Polyvagal Theory further explains how the autonomic nervous system supports attachment through the social engagement system. This neurobiological system enables the face-to-face interactions, vocalisations, and emotional cues that characterise secure attachment relationships. When this system functions optimally, children can engage socially while maintaining physiological regulation.

The quality of early attachment relationships appears to have lasting effects on brain development. Longitudinal neuroimaging research by Moutsiana et al. (2015) found that attachment security in infancy predicted more effective emotion regulation neural circuitry in adulthood, suggesting that early attachment experiences may programme neural systems with remarkable longevity.

The Sensitive Period for Attachment Formation

While attachment relationships continue to develop throughout life, research strongly supports the existence of sensitive periods during which the brain is especially receptive to attachment-related experiences. These periods represent windows of both opportunity and vulnerability.

The concept of sensitive periods in attachment formation is supported by several lines of evidence:

• Studies of institutionalised children demonstrate that early deprivation during the first two years has more profound effects on attachment than later deprivation (Zeanah et al., 2005)
• Animal studies show that early maternal separation produces more significant and enduring neurobiological changes than separation at later developmental stages (Meaney, 2001)
• Intervention research indicates that attachment-focused interventions yield stronger effects when implemented during infancy and toddlerhood (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 2003)

The most crucial period for primary attachment formation appears to be between 6 and 24 months of age. During this time, infants develop specific attachments to caregivers, begin to use them as secure bases for exploration, and show clear separation and stranger anxiety. This coincides with significant development in the prefrontal cortex and limbic system structures that support emotional processing and regulation.

However, Bowlby’s (1969) original conceptualisation of a rigid critical period has given way to a more nuanced understanding of sensitive periods with some degree of plasticity. Research with adopted and fostered children demonstrates that while early attachment disruptions increase developmental risk, many children can form secure attachments to new caregivers under supportive conditions (van den Dries et al., 2009).

The concept of sensitive periods has important implications for intervention. As noted by Zeanah and Gleason (2015), earlier interventions targeting the caregiver-child relationship typically yield stronger effects than later interventions, though meaningful change remains possible beyond the Early Years. This understanding has informed the development of early intervention programmes like the Video-feedback Intervention to promote Positive Parenting (Juffer et al., 2008), which aims to support optimal attachment during sensitive developmental windows.

Nature vs. Nurture in Attachment Development

The development of attachment patterns reflects a complex interplay between biological predispositions and environmental experiences. While early theorists sometimes presented attachment development as primarily determined by caregiving quality, contemporary research reveals a more nuanced picture involving bidirectional influences and gene-environment interactions.

Several biological factors influence attachment development:

• Temperament: Individual differences in reactivity, sociability, and self-regulation influence how infants engage with caregivers and respond to caregiving approaches
• Genetic factors: Twin studies suggest moderate heritability for attachment security, with genetic factors accounting for approximately 35-45% of variance in attachment patterns (Fearon et al., 2014)
• Neurobiological differences: Variations in stress reactivity, sensory processing, and social cognition may influence attachment development

Simultaneously, environmental factors play a crucial role:

• Caregiver sensitivity: Consistently responsive caregiving that accurately perceives and addresses infant needs promotes secure attachment
• Family context: Factors such as parental mental health, relationship quality, and social support influence caregiving capacity
• Socioeconomic circumstances: Poverty, housing instability, and resource scarcity create stressors that can challenge optimal caregiving
• Cultural practices: Child-rearing beliefs and practices shape specific expressions of attachment behaviour

Rather than viewing nature and nurture as competing explanations, contemporary attachment research emphasises their interaction. The field of epigenetics has provided compelling evidence for how environmental experiences, particularly early caregiving, can influence gene expression. Research by Champagne and Curley (2009) demonstrates that maternal care can alter the expression of genes related to stress responsivity, potentially explaining one mechanism through which caregiving influences attachment development.

Belsky and Pluess (2009) propose a “differential susceptibility” model suggesting that some children are more biologically sensitive to both positive and negative caregiving influences due to genetic, temperamental, or physiological factors. These children may be at greater risk in adverse caregiving environments but also show enhanced benefit from supportive care—a pattern described as “orchid children” in contrast to more resilient “dandelion children.”

This perspective moves beyond simplistic nature-versus-nurture debates to recognise that attachment development involves complex interactions between biological predispositions and environmental experiences across development. As noted by Thompson (2016), attachment patterns reflect “the joint product of constitutional and experiential influences that cannot be easily disentangled.”

Recent research has also highlighted the importance of considering broader ecological contexts in attachment development. Factors such as cultural values, economic resources, social support networks, and community safety all influence caregiving practices and, consequently, attachment outcomes (Mesman et al., 2016). This ecological perspective reminds us that attachment development occurs not just within the caregiver-child dyad but within interconnected social systems that support or challenge caregiving capacity.

The science of attachment formation continues to evolve, with emerging research exploring how factors such as prenatal experiences, epigenetic mechanisms, and broader sociocultural contexts influence attachment development. What remains clear is that the formation of secure attachment represents a biologically grounded process that is nonetheless highly responsive to environmental influences, particularly the quality of early caregiving relationships.

Attachment Across the Lifespan

Attachment is not merely a phenomenon of early childhood but a dynamic process that continues to evolve throughout the human lifespan. While early attachment experiences create foundational patterns, these patterns are elaborated, modified, and sometimes transformed through subsequent relationships and developmental transitions. Understanding the expression and function of attachment at different life stages provides valuable insight into human development and relationships from cradle to grave.

Infant-Caregiver Bonding: The Beginning of Attachment

The foundation of attachment begins even before birth, with prenatal bonding experiences influencing postnatal attachment development. Research by Fonagy et al. (1991) found that a mother’s capacity to conceptualise her unborn baby as a separate being with mental states (termed “reflective functioning”) predicted infant attachment security at one year.

The newborn period represents a crucial time for attachment development, with several distinct phases:

• Pre-attachment phase (0-6 weeks): Infants display innate behaviours that promote proximity to caregivers, including crying, grasping, visual tracking, and preferential response to the human face and voice
• Attachment-in-making phase (6 weeks to 6-8 months): Infants begin to differentiate familiar caregivers, display preferential social responses, and develop synchronous interaction patterns
• Clear-cut attachment phase (6-8 months to 18-24 months): Separation anxiety emerges, stranger wariness develops, and infants use caregivers as secure bases for exploration
• Goal-corrected partnership (24+ months): Children develop more sophisticated understanding of caregiver availability and begin to negotiate needs within the relationship

Trevarthen and Aitken (2001) describe how these early interactions are characterised by “primary intersubjectivity”—an innate capacity for emotional attunement and reciprocity that supports attachment formation. Through thousands of subtle interactions, infants and caregivers develop synchronised communication patterns essential for secure attachment.

The quality of attachment in infancy is strongly influenced by caregiver sensitivity. As demonstrated by De Wolff and van IJzendoorn’s (1997) meta-analysis, parental sensitivity—defined as the ability to perceive and respond appropriately to infant signals—is a significant predictor of attachment security, though not the only relevant factor.

Other important influences on early attachment include:

• Consistency and predictability of caregiver responses
• Appropriate emotional regulation support during distress
• Contingent social interaction during play
• Balance between protection and support for exploration

During the Early Years, attachment serves several crucial functions: providing safety and protection, regulating emotional experiences, offering a secure base for exploration, and establishing a foundation for later social relationships and self-understanding.

Childhood Attachment Patterns and Behavioural Indicators

As children develop, attachment patterns become increasingly complex and are expressed through both behaviour and internal representations. By the preschool and early school years, children have developed elaborate internal working models of attachment relationships, which guide their expectations, emotional responses, and social interactions.

In these years, secure attachment typically manifests as:

• Age-appropriate autonomy balanced with willingness to seek help when needed
• Coherent emotional expression and flexible coping strategies
• Positive yet realistic views of self and others
• Capacity for reciprocity in peer relationships
• Comfort discussing a wide range of emotions, including difficult ones

Insecure attachment patterns also evolve with development. According to Cassidy and Marvin (1992), anxious attachment in school-aged children often appears as:

• Excessive dependence or clingy behaviour
• Heightened emotional displays and difficulty with self-regulation
• Constant seeking of adult attention and approval
• Reluctance to engage in independent exploration
• Anxiety in social situations with peers

Avoidant attachment typically manifests as:

• Excessive self-reliance and reluctance to seek help
• Limited emotional expression, particularly regarding vulnerability
• Preference for solitary activities over social engagement
• Dismissal of the importance of close relationships
• Compliance with rules but limited emotional engagement

Disorganised attachment in childhood may appear as:

• Controlling behaviours toward caregivers (either punitive or caregiving)
• Unusual social responses (excessive familiarity with strangers or extreme wariness)
• Dissociative responses during stress
• Difficulty with peer relationships
• Unpredictable behavioural patterns

Attachment patterns in childhood show moderate stability, with approximately 70% of children maintaining their attachment classification from infancy to early childhood in the absence of significant life events or changes in caregiving quality (Moss et al., 2005). However, this stability is not absolute—shifts in family circumstances, parental mental health, or direct attachment-focused interventions can alter attachment trajectories.

During middle childhood (ages 7-11), attachment increasingly functions through psychological availability rather than physical proximity. Children internalise their attachment figures, carrying “working models” that allow them to maintain a sense of security even during separations. Kerns and Brumariu (2014) note that during this period, children develop more sophisticated understanding of relationships, including awareness that attachment figures have their own needs and perspectives.

Adolescent Attachment Transitions and Identity Formation

Adolescence represents a significant transition in attachment organisation, as young people begin to reduce dependence on parental attachment figures and develop significant attachment bonds with peers and romantic partners. This phase involves renegotiating the balance between connection and autonomy rather than severing attachment ties.

Allen and Tan (2016) identify several key attachment-related tasks of adolescence:

• Establishing greater independence while maintaining connection to parents
• Developing capacity for emotional intimacy with peers
• Transferring attachment functions from parents to peers and romantic partners
• Integrating attachment experiences into coherent identity formation
• Developing metacognitive capacity to reflect on attachment relationships

Research indicates that secure attachment in adolescence is associated with:

• More balanced autonomy development
• Better emotion regulation during stress
• Higher quality peer relationships
• More effective identity exploration
• Lower rates of risk-taking behaviours

Insecure attachment patterns during this period are often associated with difficulties in these developmental tasks. Adolescents with anxious attachment may struggle with separation-individuation, showing either excessive rebellion or reluctance to develop appropriate autonomy. Those with avoidant patterns may prematurely cut off emotional connections with parents without developing adequate alternative support systems.

The interplay between attachment and identity formation is particularly important during adolescence. According to Zimmermann and Becker-Stoll (2002), secure attachment provides a foundation for healthy identity exploration by offering both emotional security and appropriate autonomy support. Conversely, insecure attachment may contribute to identity foreclosure (premature commitment without exploration) or identity diffusion (lack of commitment and minimal exploration).

Neuroscience research indicates that adolescence represents a period of significant neural plasticity, offering opportunities for revising attachment patterns through new relationship experiences. Positive relationships with teachers, mentors, coaches, and peers can provide “earned security” for adolescents with earlier attachment difficulties (Allen et al., 2003).

Adult Romantic Relationships Through the Attachment Lens

In adulthood, attachment patterns are most visibly expressed in romantic relationships, where partners typically serve as primary attachment figures. Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) groundbreaking work extended attachment theory to adult romantic relationships, demonstrating remarkable parallels between infant-caregiver and adult romantic attachments.

Adult attachment styles influence numerous aspects of romantic relationships:

• Comfort with emotional intimacy and interdependence
• Trust and expectations regarding partner availability
• Communication patterns, particularly during conflict
• Sexual intimacy and satisfaction
• Responses to relationship threats or separations

Securely attached adults typically form relationships characterised by emotional openness, appropriate interdependence, effective communication during conflict, and balanced autonomy. According to longitudinal research by Simpson et al. (2007), these individuals tend to select partners who are responsive and supportive, and they engage in relationship behaviours that foster mutual satisfaction.

Adults with anxious attachment often experience relationships marked by:

• Intense desire for closeness and reassurance
• Heightened vigilance to signs of rejection
• Tendency toward jealousy and relationship anxiety
• Emotional reactivity during conflict
• Difficulty establishing appropriate boundaries

Those with avoidant attachment typically display:

• Discomfort with emotional dependency
• Tendency to maintain psychological distance
• Limited self-disclosure and emotional expression
• Deactivation of attachment needs during stress
• Difficulty seeking support when needed

Adults with disorganised/fearful-avoidant attachment often experience:

• Chaotic relationship patterns with approach-avoidance dynamics
• Intense fear of both abandonment and engulfment
• Difficulty regulating emotions within relationships
• Potential for volatile or unpredictable relationship behaviours
• Challenges in maintaining stable, satisfying partnerships

Importantly, Mikulincer and Shaver (2016) note that adult attachment patterns exist on continuous dimensions rather than as discrete categories, with most individuals showing some degree of both attachment anxiety and avoidance. These patterns can also vary somewhat across different relationships, reflecting the influence of relationship-specific experiences and partner characteristics.

Adult attachment patterns show moderate stability over time but remain open to change through significant relationship experiences. Therapeutic relationships, rewarding partnerships, and increased self-awareness can all contribute to movement toward more secure attachment in adulthood (Davila et al., 1999).

Attachment in Elderly Care and End-of-Life Contexts

Attachment processes continue into late adulthood, though their expression and function evolve with the life transitions of ageing. As individuals face health challenges, loss of significant others, and increased dependency needs, attachment systems are reactivated in ways that can profoundly influence wellbeing and adjustment.

In later life, attachment often manifests through:

• Reliance on adult children or spouses for practical and emotional support
• Maintenance of emotional bonds with deceased attachment figures
• Adaptation to changing relationship roles and dependencies
• Reconciliation of lifetime attachment experiences through life review
• Negotiation of end-of-life care preferences and decisions

Bradley and Cafferty (2001) propose that attachment security in later life serves as a resilience factor during the losses and transitions of ageing. Securely attached older adults typically demonstrate:

• Greater capacity to seek appropriate support while maintaining dignity
• More effective adjustment to health limitations and increased dependency
• Better integration of loss experiences
• More constructive communication with healthcare providers
• Greater ease in accepting care from others when needed

Conversely, insecure attachment in later life may manifest as:

• Extreme reluctance to accept needed care (avoidant patterns)
• Overwhelming anxiety about abandonment or inadequate care (anxious patterns)
• Difficulty trusting healthcare providers
• Complicated grief responses following losses
• Challenges in maintaining appropriate boundaries with caregivers

Research by Cicirelli (2010) demonstrates that adult children’s caregiving for elderly parents is significantly influenced by the quality of earlier attachment relationships. Secure attachment histories tend to facilitate more balanced, flexible caregiving approaches, while insecure patterns may contribute to either detachment or enmeshment in the caregiving relationship.

In end-of-life contexts, attachment processes become particularly salient. As Mikulincer and Shaver (2008) observe, facing mortality often activates attachment needs for proximity, comfort, and security. Hospice and palliative care approaches that recognise and respond to these attachment needs can significantly enhance quality of life and psychological adjustment during terminal illness.

Attachment theory also offers valuable perspectives on grief and bereavement. According to Stroebe et al. (2010), secure attachment facilitates healthy grieving by allowing individuals to maintain an internal connection with the deceased while gradually reorganising their lives. By contrast, anxious attachment may contribute to prolonged, intense grief, while avoidant attachment can lead to delayed or inhibited grieving processes.

Throughout the lifespan, attachment continues to serve its fundamental function of providing security and connection during vulnerability. While the specific manifestations and relationship contexts evolve dramatically from infancy to old age, the basic human need for secure attachment remains remarkably consistent. Understanding attachment as a lifespan process offers valuable insights for supporting healthy development and relationships at every stage of life.

The Impact of Attachment on Mental Health

The quality of early attachment relationships has profound implications for psychological wellbeing across the lifespan. A substantial body of research indicates that attachment patterns influence vulnerability to mental health difficulties, emotional regulation capacities, and response to psychological interventions. As DeKlyen and Greenberg (2016) observe, attachment theory provides a powerful framework for understanding both risk and resilience in psychological development.

Secure Attachment as a Protective Factor

Secure attachment appears to function as a significant protective factor against psychological distress and disorder. Research consistently demonstrates that individuals with secure attachment histories show greater psychological resilience and lower rates of various mental health conditions. A meta-analysis by Madigan et al. (2013) found that secure attachment was associated with significantly reduced risk for both internalising and externalising disorders in childhood and adolescence.

This protective effect appears to operate through several mechanisms:

• Enhanced emotional regulation capacities, allowing more flexible responses to stress
• More positive internal working models of self and others, supporting healthier relationships
• Greater comfort seeking and accepting social support during distress
• More coherent narrative integration of difficult experiences
• Higher levels of mentalization—the ability to understand behaviour in terms of underlying mental states

Sroufe et al.’s (2005) landmark longitudinal study found that early secure attachment predicted greater resilience even in the face of later adversity, suggesting that secure attachment provides enduring psychological resources that support adaptation across various life challenges.

Attachment Insecurity and Vulnerability to Psychological Disorders

Insecure attachment patterns, while not pathological in themselves, appear to increase vulnerability to various psychological difficulties. As Dozier et al. (2008) note, insecure attachment represents a “non-specific risk factor” that increases general susceptibility to psychological distress rather than predicting specific disorders.

Multiple studies indicate that insecure attachment is overrepresented among clinical populations. Bakermans-Kranenburg and van IJzendoorn (2009) found that while approximately 40% of the general population shows insecure attachment, this rises to 60-80% among individuals seeking mental health treatment.

Different insecure attachment patterns appear to confer vulnerability through distinct pathways:

• Anxious attachment is associated with hyperactivation of negative emotions, rumination, excessive reassurance-seeking, and interpersonal dependence
• Avoidant attachment is linked to suppression of emotions, limited help-seeking, compulsive self-reliance, and difficulties with intimacy
• Disorganised attachment is related to problems with integration of emotional experiences, identity confusion, and interpersonal instability

Research by Mikulincer and Shaver (2012) demonstrates that these attachment-related vulnerabilities often become particularly evident during periods of stress or life transition, when effective emotional regulation and interpersonal support are most needed.

Specific Connections to Common Mental Health Conditions

Attachment patterns show meaningful associations with specific psychological conditions, though these relationships are complex and often moderated by other biological and environmental factors.

Anxiety Disorders: According to research by Warren et al. (1997), anxious attachment in infancy predicted significantly higher rates of anxiety disorders in adolescence. This connection appears logical, as anxious attachment involves hypervigilance to threat, amplification of distress, and difficulty developing effective self-soothing—all characteristics relevant to anxiety disorders. A meta-analysis by Colonnesi et al. (2011) confirmed moderate associations between anxious attachment and anxiety symptoms across development.

Depressive Disorders: Insecure attachment shows consistent associations with vulnerability to depression. A longitudinal study by Morley and Moran (2011) found that insecure attachment predicted earlier onset, greater severity, and more chronic course of depressive disorders. Anxious attachment appears linked to depression through rumination, negative self-views, and excessive dependency, while avoidant attachment may contribute through limited social support, suppressed emotion, and difficulty processing loss experiences.

Personality Disorders: Perhaps the strongest associations exist between disorganised attachment and personality disorders, particularly those involving emotional dysregulation and interpersonal instability. Bakermans-Kranenburg and van IJzendoorn (2009) found that approximately 90% of individuals diagnosed with borderline personality disorder displayed insecure attachment, with disorganised patterns being particularly prevalent. The connection appears rooted in how early disorganised attachment disrupts the development of coherent self-representation and effective emotional regulation.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Attachment security influences how individuals process and integrate traumatic experiences. Research by Besser and Neria (2012) found that secure attachment was associated with greater resilience following trauma exposure, while insecure attachment—particularly disorganised patterns—predicted greater vulnerability to post-traumatic stress symptoms. This relationship appears bidirectional, as trauma can also disrupt attachment security.

Attachment-Informed Therapeutic Approaches

Understanding attachment patterns has significant implications for psychological treatment. Many effective therapeutic approaches now incorporate attachment principles, either explicitly or implicitly addressing attachment-related difficulties.

The growing evidence for attachment-informed interventions highlights how understanding attachment processes can enhance treatment effectiveness across various mental health conditions. As noted by Fonagy and Allison (2014), many effective psychological therapies may work partly by providing a secure base that facilitates revision of attachment-related beliefs and expectations. This perspective suggests that attention to attachment processes may represent an important transdiagnostic factor in psychological treatment.

Cultural Variations in Attachment Theory

The cultural context in which attachment relationships develop significantly influences both the expression and interpretation of attachment behaviours. While attachment theory proposes that the need for secure attachment is universal, how security is achieved and expressed varies considerably across cultural contexts. Understanding these cultural variations is essential for developing a truly comprehensive attachment framework that acknowledges diverse childrearing practices and relationship values.

Cross-Cultural Research Findings and Limitations

Cross-cultural attachment research has yielded both consistent patterns and important variations. The landmark meta-analysis by van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) examined attachment classifications across cultures using the Strange Situation procedure and found that all three major attachment patterns (secure, anxious, and avoidant) were present in every culture studied. Secure attachment was the most common pattern in most cultures, suggesting some universality in attachment organisation.

However, significant cultural variations were also evident:

• The distribution of insecure patterns varied considerably, with avoidant attachment more common in Western European countries and anxious attachment more prevalent in Israel and Japan
• The overall rates of secure attachment ranged from approximately 50% to 80% across different cultural samples
• Interpretations of the Strange Situation differed across cultural contexts, with some behaviours considered normative in one culture being viewed as problematic in another

More recent cross-cultural research has identified important limitations in traditional attachment assessment methods when applied across diverse contexts. Rothbaum et al. (2000) argued that the Strange Situation procedure itself reflects Western assumptions about appropriate infant behaviour, potentially misclassifying culturally normative behaviour patterns as insecure. For example, Japanese infants typically display greater distress during separation and more ambivalent behaviour during reunion—patterns that might be classified as anxious attachment but may actually reflect cultural expectations for close mother-infant relationships.

Research by Keller (2013) identified methodological challenges in cross-cultural attachment research, including:

• Reliance on assessment tools developed in Western contexts
• Limited representation of diverse cultural groups in attachment research
• Insufficient attention to indigenous caregiving values and practices
• Tendency to interpret differences through a Western normative lens

These limitations highlight the need for culturally sensitive approaches to attachment assessment that consider local norms, values, and childrearing goals.

Collectivist vs. Individualist Cultural Influences

One of the most significant dimensions influencing attachment patterns is the distinction between collectivist and individualist cultural orientations. These cultural frameworks shape caregiving priorities, childrearing practices, and the developmental goals parents hold for their children.

In more individualist cultures, typically found in Western societies, attachment relationships often emphasise:

• Development of autonomy and independence
• Dyadic parent-child interactions focused on verbal exchanges
• Explicit expression of emotions and needs
• Exploration and self-assertion as developmental goals
• Parent-child relationships that prioritise the child’s individual development

By contrast, in more collectivist cultures, common in East Asian, African, and Latin American societies, attachment relationships frequently emphasise:

• Integration into the social group and development of interdependence
• Multiple caregiving arrangements with extended family involvement
• Implicit understanding of needs with less emphasis on verbal expression
• Social harmony and proper relationship conduct as developmental goals
• Parent-child relationships embedded within broader family and community systems

Research by Rothbaum et al. (2000) demonstrated how these cultural differences influence both attachment behaviours and their interpretation. For example, Japanese mothers often prioritise anticipatory care that prevents distress rather than responding to distress after it occurs—a pattern that differs from the responsive sensitivity emphasised in Western attachment research but serves similar attachment functions.

Similarly, Keller (2013) found that in rural Cameroonian communities, multiple caregiving arrangements are normative, with infants developing attachments to several caregivers simultaneously. This contrasts with the Western emphasis on primary attachment figures but provides children with rich social networks that support development within their cultural context.

Indigenous Perspectives on Attachment and Bonding

Indigenous perspectives on child development and caregiving offer important alternatives to mainstream attachment frameworks. These perspectives often emphasise the embeddedness of attachment relationships within broader ecological and spiritual contexts.

Research with Aboriginal Australian communities by Yeo (2003) found distinctive caregiving patterns characterised by:

• Distributed caregiving across extended family networks
• High levels of infant autonomy within protected community spaces
• Emphasis on connection to cultural traditions and land
• Non-interference caregiving styles that respect the child’s developing personhood
• Integration of spiritual beliefs into understanding of child development

Similarly, Simonds and Christopher (2013) documented Native American perspectives on attachment that emphasise:

• Connection to cultural identity as central to secure development
• Importance of spiritual bonds alongside interpersonal attachments
• Extended family and community involvement in caregiving
• Teaching of cultural values through relationship experiences
• Historical trauma considerations in understanding attachment patterns

These indigenous perspectives challenge Western attachment theory to expand beyond dyadic models to consider how children develop security through connections to community, culture, and place. As noted by Neckoway et al. (2007), indigenous approaches often view the child as naturally embedded within a web of relationships rather than primarily attached to individual caregivers.

Criticism of Western-Centric Attachment Frameworks

Critical perspectives on attachment theory have highlighted its cultural limitations and Western-centric assumptions. LeVine and Norman (2001) argue that attachment theory emerged from specific historical and cultural contexts that prioritised psychological individualism, dyadic relationships, and particular developmental goals that are not universal.

Key criticisms include:

• The universalist claims of attachment theory often inadequately account for cultural diversity in childrearing practices
• Traditional attachment assessments may pathologise culturally adaptive caregiving approaches
• Western emphasis on autonomy as a developmental goal reflects cultural values rather than universal developmental necessities
• Limited attention to socioeconomic, political, and historical factors that shape caregiving contexts
• Insufficient recognition of cultural variations in what constitutes sensitive and responsive caregiving

Scholars like Burman (2016) have called for decolonising attachment theory by recognising how Western psychological frameworks have often been imposed on diverse communities without sufficient cultural sensitivity or awareness of power dynamics.

Recent efforts to develop more culturally inclusive attachment frameworks include Keller’s (2018) component model, which identifies universal attachment needs while acknowledging diverse pathways to meeting these needs across cultural contexts. Similarly, Mesman et al. (2016) propose a contextual approach that considers how attachment security manifests differently depending on the ecological and cultural environment.

These developments suggest that attachment theory’s continuing relevance depends on its capacity to evolve beyond its Western origins to embrace diverse cultural perspectives on caregiving, relationship, and human development. Rather than abandoning attachment theory’s core insights, these critical perspectives invite a more nuanced, contextually sensitive approach that honours the diversity of human attachment experiences.

Assessing Attachment Styles

The assessment of attachment patterns has evolved significantly since Ainsworth’s original Strange Situation procedure, with various methods now available for different age groups and contexts. These assessment approaches range from observational measures to interview-based assessments and self-report questionnaires, each with distinct strengths and limitations.

Validated Measurement Tools

Several well-established tools are commonly used to assess attachment across the lifespan:

• The Strange Situation Procedure (SSP): Developed by Ainsworth et al. (1978), this observational measure remains the gold standard for assessing attachment in infants aged 12-18 months through a series of separations and reunions with caregivers
• Adult Attachment Interview (AAI): Created by George et al. (1996), this semi-structured interview assesses adult attachment representations by analysing how individuals discuss early attachment experiences, focusing on narrative coherence rather than content
• Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR): Developed by Brennan et al. (1998), this self-report measure assesses attachment dimensions of anxiety and avoidance in adult romantic relationships
• Child Attachment Interview (CAI): A downward extension of the AAI for children aged 7-12, developed by Target et al. (2003), using developmentally appropriate questions and coding

These measures differ not only in methodology but also in their theoretical underpinnings. The AAI focuses on “states of mind regarding attachment” rather than behaviours, while self-report measures like the ECR assess conscious attitudes and feelings about relationships.

Self-Assessment Considerations

While formal clinical assessment provides the most reliable information, self-assessment can offer preliminary insights into attachment patterns. When considering self-assessment, individuals should:

• Recognise that attachment exists on continua rather than as discrete categories
• Consider patterns across multiple relationships rather than focusing on single experiences
• Acknowledge that self-perception may differ from observer ratings
• Be aware of defensive processes that may influence self-assessment

As noted by Mikulincer and Shaver (2016), individuals with avoidant attachment may underreport relationship concerns due to defensive processes, while those with anxious attachment may be more aware of relationship insecurities.

Professional Assessment Approaches

Clinical assessment of attachment typically involves multiple methods and informants to develop a comprehensive understanding. Best practices include:

• Combining observational, interview, and questionnaire approaches
• Gathering information from various relationship contexts
• Considering developmental history alongside current functioning
• Assessing attachment in relation to specific relationships rather than globally

Crittenden (2015) emphasises that professional assessment should consider the adaptive function of attachment strategies within specific contexts rather than simply categorising them as secure or insecure.

Limitations of Attachment Style Categorisation

Despite their utility, attachment assessments face several limitations:

• Categorical approaches oversimplify the complexity of attachment, which is better conceptualised dimensionally
• Cultural biases in assessment tools may pathologise culturally normative behaviours
• Most measures show only moderate stability over time, reflecting both measurement error and actual change
• Self-report measures are subject to reporting biases and limited self-awareness

As Fraley and Roisman (2014) note, attachment classification should be viewed as a descriptive tool rather than a fixed trait or diagnostic category. The most valuable approach to attachment assessment recognises its dynamic nature and considers how attachment patterns may serve adaptive functions in specific relational contexts.

Healing and Changing Attachment Patterns

While early attachment experiences create powerful templates for relationships, attachment patterns remain amenable to change throughout life. Contemporary understanding of neuroplasticity and emotional development suggests that with appropriate support and intervention, individuals can move toward more secure attachment functioning regardless of early history.

Evidence-Based Therapeutic Approaches

Several therapeutic modalities have demonstrated effectiveness in addressing attachment insecurity:

• Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT): Developed by Johnson (2004), this approach helps couples identify negative interaction cycles rooted in attachment insecurity and develop more secure emotional bonds through structured emotional engagement
• Accelerated Experiential Dynamic Psychotherapy (AEDP): Fosha (2000) designed this approach to help individuals process previously avoided emotions within the safety of the therapeutic relationship, facilitating transformation of attachment patterns
• Schema Therapy: Young et al. (2003) created this integrative therapy that addresses early maladaptive schemas, including those related to attachment, through experiential techniques and the therapeutic relationship
• Mentalization-Based Therapy (MBT): This approach by Bateman and Fonagy (2016) focuses on enhancing the capacity to understand mental states in self and others, addressing a core deficit in attachment insecurity

Research by Wiebe and Johnson (2016) found that EFT produced significant shifts in attachment security for distressed couples, with benefits maintaining at two-year follow-up. Similarly, Taylor et al. (2015) demonstrated that individual therapies addressing attachment representations showed moderate to large effects in reducing symptoms related to attachment insecurity.

Self-Help Strategies for Developing Secure Attachment

While professional support often provides the most effective path to attachment security, several self-directed approaches can support positive change:

• Developing awareness of one’s attachment pattern and how it manifests in relationships
• Practising mindfulness to increase emotional awareness and regulation
• Building a support network of stable, reliable relationships
• Engaging in consistent self-care and stress management
• Reading evidence-based resources on attachment and relationship functioning

Levine and Heller (2010) suggest that understanding one’s attachment style can help individuals make conscious choices about relationship patterns rather than reacting automatically based on early programming.

The Concept of “Earned Secure Attachment”

“Earned secure attachment” describes individuals who develop secure attachment representations despite insecure early experiences. Main and Goldwyn (1984) first identified this pattern in Adult Attachment Interviews where individuals coherently discussed difficult early relationships without becoming disorganised or dismissive.

Research by Roisman et al. (2002) suggests that earned security develops through:

• Developing a coherent narrative about early experiences
• Engaging in relationships that provide corrective emotional experiences
• Building reflective capacity about one’s own and others’ mental states
• Processing and integrating previously unresolved emotions

While the journey toward more secure attachment functioning can be challenging, particularly for those with complex developmental trauma, significant improvement is possible at any age. As noted by Siegel (2012), the brain remains capable of developing new patterns of relating throughout life, particularly within the context of emotionally corrective relationships.

Attachment Theory in Practice

Attachment theory has expanded beyond psychological research to inform practical applications across numerous domains. Its principles offer valuable guidance for supporting healthy relationships and emotional development in diverse contexts, from family homes to classrooms, workplaces, and healthcare settings.

Parenting Applications and Secure Base Provision

Attachment principles have significantly influenced contemporary parenting approaches. Evidence-based programmes like Circle of Security (Powell et al., 2014) translate attachment theory into practical parenting guidance, focusing on:

• Providing a secure base from which children can explore
• Offering a safe haven for comfort during distress
• Supporting emotional regulation through co-regulation
• Recognising and responding to the underlying needs behind behaviour

Research by Juffer et al. (2008) found that even brief attachment-based interventions can significantly improve parental sensitivity and child security. These approaches emphasise that sensitive parenting involves both responding to distress and supporting exploration—the dual aspects of secure attachment.

Educational Settings and Teacher-Student Attachment

In educational contexts, attachment theory highlights the importance of secure teacher-student relationships as foundations for learning. According to Bergin and Bergin (2009), teachers who function as secondary attachment figures can support:

• Emotional security in the classroom environment
• Confidence to take academic risks and explore new concepts
• Improved behaviour regulation and peer relationships
• Enhanced resilience for students with attachment difficulties

Schools implementing attachment-aware practices have reported reductions in behaviour problems and improvements in academic engagement, particularly for vulnerable students (Bomber, 2011).

Workplace Dynamics and Leadership Through Attachment Theory

The workplace represents another domain where attachment principles offer valuable insights. Research by Harms (2011) demonstrates that attachment patterns influence:

• Leadership styles and effectiveness
• Team cohesion and collaboration
• Responses to organisational change
• Workplace relationship satisfaction

Leaders who provide a “secure base” for their teams typically demonstrate consistent availability, clear communication, and support for both autonomy and connection—characteristics that parallel secure attachment relationships in other contexts.

Healthcare Applications in Trauma-Informed Care

Perhaps most significantly, attachment theory has informed the development of trauma-informed healthcare approaches. As described by Bowlby’s collaborator Cassidy (2016), understanding attachment processes helps healthcare providers:

• Recognise how medical procedures may activate attachment systems
• Provide relational safety during vulnerable healthcare experiences
• Support patients with attachment-related healthcare avoidance
• Address the relational dimensions of healing

The NHS’s trauma-informed framework incorporates attachment principles in recognising how early relational experiences influence healthcare engagement and outcomes, particularly for individuals with histories of adverse childhood experiences (NHS England, 2018).

Across these diverse applications, attachment theory offers a unifying framework for understanding how secure relationships support wellbeing and development throughout the lifespan. The practical implementation of attachment principles continues to evolve as research further clarifies the mechanisms through which secure relationships foster resilience and growth.

Digital Age Challenges to Attachment

The digital revolution has fundamentally altered the landscape in which attachment relationships develop and function. From infant-caregiver interactions influenced by smartphone distractions to technology-mediated romantic relationships, digital technologies present both challenges and opportunities for attachment processes.

Social Media Impacts on Attachment Processes

Social media platforms have created new dimensions to relationship formation and maintenance that influence attachment dynamics. Research by Oldmeadow et al. (2013) found that attachment patterns predict distinct patterns of social media use:

• Anxiously attached individuals often engage in excessive monitoring of partners’ online activities
• Avoidantly attached people typically maintain greater psychological distance through minimal self-disclosure
• Social comparison on platforms can exacerbate attachment insecurities
• Digital communication lacks many nonverbal cues essential for attachment security

The constant accessibility of social connection paradoxically appears to increase attachment anxiety for some individuals, creating what Konrath et al. (2014) describe as “connection without attunement.”

Screen Time and Parent-Child Attachment Challenges

Digital devices create new challenges for the development of secure parent-child attachments. McDaniel and Radesky (2018) identified concerning patterns in their research on “technoference”—technology-related interruptions in parent-child interactions:

• Parental device use during key attachment moments (feeding, play, bedtime) disrupts attunement
• Children may experience inconsistent parental attention when competing with devices
• Digital distractions reduce face-to-face interactions crucial for attachment development
• Parents report diminished sensitivity to children’s cues when engaged with devices

These disruptions are particularly significant during the Early Years when attachment bonds are forming and consolidating through thousands of brief but meaningful interactions.

Technology-Mediated Relationships and Attachment Formation

Increasingly, meaningful relationships develop and maintain through digital channels, raising questions about attachment formation in technology-mediated contexts. Fletcher et al. (2020) found that:

• Online relationships can develop genuine attachment bonds despite physical distance
• Technology creates both connection opportunities and novel forms of attachment anxiety
• Digital communication can support attachment maintenance but may complicate security
• Different platforms support different aspects of attachment functioning

Video calls appear particularly valuable for maintaining attachment bonds at a distance, as they provide visual cues important for synchronous interaction, though they cannot fully replace physical co-presence (Tarasuik et al., 2017).

Digital Interventions for Attachment Insecurity

Despite these challenges, digital technologies also offer promising interventions for attachment difficulties. Several evidence-based approaches have emerged:

• Mobile applications supporting parent-child attunement through prompts and activities
• Online therapeutic interventions addressing attachment insecurity in adults
• Virtual reality environments providing safe contexts for practising secure attachment behaviours
• Digital reminders and tracking tools that support consistent caregiving routines

Research by Comer et al. (2021) suggests that while digital interventions cannot replace relationship-based approaches, they can extend accessibility and provide valuable supplements to traditional attachment-focused interventions, particularly for geographically isolated populations.

As our digital landscape continues to evolve, understanding how technology influences attachment processes remains an important frontier for attachment research and application, requiring nuanced approaches that neither demonise nor uncritically embrace technological change.

Future Directions in Attachment Research

Attachment theory continues to evolve as new research methodologies, interdisciplinary perspectives, and societal challenges emerge. Contemporary attachment researchers are expanding the boundaries of the field in several promising directions that may significantly enhance our understanding of attachment processes and their applications.

Emerging Research Questions and Methodological Advances

The landscape of attachment research is being transformed by innovative methodologies that provide more nuanced insights into attachment processes. According to Roisman and Fraley (2023), several exciting developments are shaping the field:

• Real-time physiological measurements that capture biological correlates of attachment behaviour
• Mobile technology enabling momentary ecological assessment of attachment processes in natural environments
• Advanced statistical approaches moving beyond categories to dimensional models of attachment
• Cross-cultural methodologies designed to capture diverse manifestations of attachment security

These methodological advances are helping researchers address increasingly sophisticated questions about the dynamics of attachment across contexts and developmental periods.

Epigenetic Influences on Attachment

One of the most promising areas of attachment research involves epigenetics—the study of how environmental factors influence gene expression without altering DNA sequences. Research by Champagne (2016) demonstrates that:

• Early caregiving experiences can influence the expression of genes related to stress regulation
• Epigenetic mechanisms may help explain the intergenerational transmission of attachment patterns
• Biological sensitivity to caregiving context varies based on genetic factors
• Positive caregiving experiences can potentially reverse some epigenetic effects of early adversity

This emerging research helps bridge the nature-nurture divide by illuminating specific biological mechanisms through which relational experiences become embodied.

Attachment-Informed Public Policy Possibilities

Attachment research has significant implications for public policy, particularly regarding early intervention, family support, and childcare. According to Granqvist et al. (2017), evidence-based policy applications include:

• Parental leave policies that support early attachment formation
• Early intervention programmes targeting parent-child relationships
• Child protection approaches informed by attachment principles
• Educational policies that recognise the importance of relational security for learning

As noted by Allen (2011) in the UK context, attachment-informed early intervention represents a particularly cost-effective approach to promoting child wellbeing and preventing later difficulties.

Integration with Other Psychological Frameworks

The future of attachment theory likely involves greater integration with complementary psychological frameworks. Promising areas of theoretical integration include:

• Connections between attachment and mentalization (Fonagy & Luyten, 2018)
• Attachment and polyvagal theory’s understanding of physiological regulation (Porges, 2011)
• Attachment perspectives on embodied cognition and interoception (Fotopoulou & Tsakiris, 2017)
• Integration of attachment with cultural-evolutionary perspectives (Mesman et al., 2016)

These integrative approaches promise to enrich attachment theory while maintaining its core insights about the fundamental importance of secure relationships for human development and wellbeing across the lifespan.

Conclusion: The Continuing Relevance of Attachment Theory

Attachment theory offers a powerful framework for understanding human relationships across the lifespan. From its origins in Bowlby’s observations of separated children to contemporary applications in diverse contexts, the theory has maintained remarkable coherence while evolving to incorporate new research and perspectives.

Key Takeaways

Several fundamental insights emerge from our exploration of attachment theory:

• The quality of early attachment relationships significantly influences development across multiple domains, from emotional regulation to social competence
• Attachment patterns, while established early, remain open to change through significant relationships and therapeutic experiences
• Secure attachment serves as both a developmental foundation and a protective factor against psychological difficulties
• Cultural context shapes how attachment is expressed and interpreted, requiring culturally sensitive approaches
• Applications of attachment principles extend across diverse contexts, from parenting to education, healthcare, and workplace relationships

As Siegel (2020) observes, the essence of attachment theory lies in recognising how human beings are fundamentally shaped by their connections with others—our brains, minds, and bodies develop in relationship, not in isolation.

Further Exploration

The journey toward secure attachment represents a lifelong process rather than a destination. As Holmes (2014) suggests, attachment security involves developing both autonomy and connection—the capacity to be separate while remaining emotionally connected.

Whether you are a parent seeking to nurture secure attachment with your child, a professional applying attachment principles in your work, or an individual working to develop more secure relationship patterns, attachment theory offers valuable guidance. The growing body of attachment-informed resources, from parenting programmes to therapeutic approaches, provides practical tools for this journey.

By recognising the profound importance of secure attachment for human flourishing, we acknowledge our fundamental interconnectedness and the healing potential of secure relationships. Perhaps the most enduring legacy of attachment theory is its affirmation that we are, as Bowlby (1988) understood, “hardwired to connect” with others from cradle to grave.

Frequently Asked Questions About Attachment Theory

What Is Attachment Theory?

Attachment theory is a psychological framework that explains how people form and maintain emotional bonds with others, particularly during early childhood. Developed by John Bowlby in the 1950s, the theory proposes that the quality of early relationships between infants and caregivers significantly influences social and emotional development throughout life. It suggests that humans are biologically predisposed to form attachments with caregivers as a survival mechanism, creating a secure base from which children can explore the world and develop healthy relationships later in life (Bowlby, 1969).

What Are the 4 Types of Attachment?

The four types of attachment are: Secure attachment, where children feel confident in their caregiver’s availability and responsiveness; Anxious-ambivalent attachment, characterised by inconsistent caregiver responses leading to heightened clinginess and anxiety; Avoidant attachment, where children learn to suppress attachment needs due to consistent caregiver unresponsiveness; and Disorganised attachment, resulting from frightening or unpredictable caregiving, leading to confused, contradictory behaviours. Originally identified through Ainsworth’s Strange Situation research (Ainsworth, 1978) and later expanded by Main and Solomon (1986), these patterns influence relationships throughout life.

Who Created Attachment Theory?

John Bowlby, a British psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, created attachment theory in the 1950s. His work was profoundly influenced by his observations of institutionalised children and those separated from their parents during World War II. Bowlby’s trilogy “Attachment and Loss” (1969, 1973, 1980) established the foundational principles of attachment theory. Mary Ainsworth significantly expanded the theory through empirical research, particularly her “Strange Situation” procedure which identified distinct attachment patterns in children. Together, Bowlby and Ainsworth are considered the co-founders of modern attachment theory (Bretherton, 1992).

What Causes Insecure Attachment?

Insecure attachment typically develops when caregivers consistently fail to respond appropriately to a child’s needs. Specific causes include: inconsistent or unpredictable caregiving (leading to anxious attachment); consistently unresponsive or rejecting parenting (leading to avoidant attachment); frightening, abusive, or neglectful behaviour (leading to disorganised attachment); family stress, parental mental illness, or substance abuse; traumatic separations; and institutional care with limited one-to-one attention. While primarily shaped by early caregiving experiences, insecure attachment patterns can also be influenced by the child’s temperament and biological factors (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Can Attachment Styles Change?

Yes, attachment styles can change throughout life, though they show moderate stability without intervention. Research by Davila et al. (1999) indicates that attachment patterns may shift through: significant relationship experiences that challenge existing working models; therapeutic interventions specifically targeting attachment patterns; major life transitions that require relational adaptation; and increasing self-awareness and intentional practice of secure behaviours. The concept of “earned secure attachment” describes individuals who develop secure attachment despite insecure beginnings. While changing deep-seated attachment patterns requires effort, the brain’s neuroplasticity allows for meaningful change in attachment security at any age.

How Does Attachment Theory Affect Adult Relationships?

Attachment theory significantly impacts adult relationships by influencing expectations, emotional responses, and behavioural patterns with partners. Securely attached adults typically form stable, trusting relationships with healthy interdependence. Anxiously attached adults often seek excessive reassurance and worry about abandonment. Avoidantly attached adults commonly maintain emotional distance and struggle with intimacy. Disorganised attachment may lead to chaotic relationship patterns with approach-avoidance dynamics. Research by Hazan and Shaver (1987) demonstrates that early attachment experiences create internal working models that guide adult relationship functioning, affecting communication styles, conflict resolution, and emotional intimacy.

What Is Secure Attachment in Adults?

Secure attachment in adults manifests as the ability to form healthy, balanced relationships characterised by emotional intimacy without excessive anxiety or avoidance. Securely attached adults typically demonstrate: comfort with both closeness and independence; effective communication about needs and emotions; trust in partners and appropriate trust in themselves; resilience during relationship conflicts; capacity to seek and provide support appropriately; and coherent narratives about past relationships. As described by Mikulincer and Shaver (2016), secure attachment enables adults to maintain a positive view of self and others, facilitating satisfying relationships across contexts while maintaining appropriate boundaries.

How Is Attachment Theory Used in Therapy?

Attachment theory is used in therapy as a framework for understanding relationship patterns and emotional regulation difficulties. Therapists may: assess attachment styles to identify underlying relationship patterns; serve as a temporary secure base, providing consistent attunement missing in early relationships; help clients recognise how past attachment experiences influence current relationships; facilitate the development of more secure internal working models; and use specific attachment-informed approaches like Emotionally Focused Therapy, Mentalization-Based Treatment, or the Circle of Security. According to research by Levy et al. (2006), attachment-informed therapy can significantly improve relationship functioning and emotional regulation.

How Does Culture Affect Attachment Theory?

Culture significantly affects attachment theory by shaping caregiving practices, relationship values, and expressions of attachment security. Research by Mesman et al. (2016) shows that while the need for secure attachment appears universal, cultural variations exist in: childrearing arrangements (individual versus multiple caregivers); expressions of sensitivity (verbal/physical engagement versus proximal care); developmental goals (independence versus interdependence); and interpretations of attachment behaviours. Traditional attachment measures often reflect Western values, potentially misclassifying culturally normative behaviours as insecure. Contemporary approaches recognise that secure attachment manifests differently across cultural contexts, requiring culturally sensitive assessment and interpretation of attachment patterns.

What Is Attachment Parenting?

Attachment parenting is a parenting philosophy that emphasises building a strong emotional bond between parent and child through responsive, attuned caregiving practices. Based on attachment theory principles but distinct from the scientific theory itself, it typically promotes: extended breastfeeding; baby-wearing or frequent physical contact; co-sleeping or bed-sharing; prompt response to crying; and limited parent-child separation. While attachment theory supports responsive parenting, researchers like Cassidy (2016) note that secure attachment can develop through various parenting approaches. The key element is parental sensitivity—accurately perceiving and appropriately responding to children’s needs—rather than specific practices like co-sleeping or baby-wearing.

References

• Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41(1), 49-67.
• Allen, G. (2011). Early intervention: The next steps. An independent report to Her Majesty’s Government. Cabinet Office.
• Allen, J. P., McElhaney, K. B., Land, D. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Moore, C. W., O’Beirne-Kelly, H., & Kilmer, S. L. (2003). A secure base in adolescence: Markers of attachment security in the mother-adolescent relationship. Child Development, 74(1), 292-307.
• Allen, J. P., & Tan, J. S. (2016). The multiple facets of attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed., pp. 399-415). Guilford Press.
• Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2009). The first 10,000 Adult Attachment Interviews: Distributions of adult attachment representations in clinical and non-clinical groups. Attachment & Human Development, 11(3), 223-263.
• Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Juffer, F. (2003). Less is more: Meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychological Bulletin, 129(2), 195-215.
• Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.
• Bateman, A. W., & Fonagy, P. (2016). Mentalization-based treatment for personality disorders: A practical guide. Oxford University Press.
• Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 885-908.
• Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. (2009). Attachment in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 141-170.
• Besser, A., & Neria, Y. (2012). When home isn’t a safe haven: Insecure attachment orientations, perceived social support, and PTSD symptoms among Israeli evacuees under missile threat. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 4(1), 34-46.
• Bomber, L. M. (2011). What about me? Inclusive strategies to support pupils with attachment difficulties make it through the school day. Worth Publishing.
• Bowlby, J. (1944). Forty-four juvenile thieves: Their characters and home life. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 25, 19-53.
• Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. Basic Books.
• Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety and anger. Basic Books.
• Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss, Vol. 3: Loss: Sadness and depression. Basic Books.
• Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.
• Bradley, J. M., & Cafferty, T. P. (2001). Attachment among older adults: Current issues and directions for future research. Attachment & Human Development, 3(2), 200-221.
• 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). Guilford Press.
• Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759-775.
• Burman, E. (2016). Deconstructing developmental psychology (3rd ed.). Routledge.
• Cassidy, J. (2016). The nature of the child’s ties. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed., pp. 3-24). Guilford Press.
• Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and its relation to other defensive processes. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp. 300-323). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Cassidy, J., & Marvin, R. S. (1992). Attachment organization in preschool children: Procedures and coding manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia.
• Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Champagne, F. A. (2016). Epigenetic legacy of parental experiences: Dynamic and interactive pathways to inheritance. Development and Psychopathology, 28(4pt2), 1219-1228.
• Champagne, F. A., & Curley, J. P. (2009). Epigenetic mechanisms mediating the long-term effects of maternal care on development. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 33(4), 593-600.
• Cicirelli, V. G. (2010). Attachment relationships in old age. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(2), 191-199.
• Colonnesi, C., Draijer, E. M., Stams, G. J. J. M., 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.
• Comer, J. S., Furr, J. M., Miguel, E. M., Cooper-Vince, C. E., Carpenter, A. L., Elkins, R. M., Kerns, C. E., Cornacchio, D., Chou, T., Coxe, S., DeSerisy, M., Sanchez, A. L., Golik, A., Martin, J., Myers, K. M., & Chase, R. (2021). Remotely delivering real-time parent training to the home: An initial randomized trial of Internet-delivered parent-child interaction therapy (I-PCIT). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 89(5), 414-431.
• Crittenden, P. M. (2015). Raising parents: Attachment, parenting and child safety (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Davila, J., Burge, D., & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment style change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 826-838.
• DeKlyen, M., & Greenberg, M. T. (2016). Attachment and psychopathology in childhood. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed., pp. 639-666). Guilford Press.
• De Wolff, M. S., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68(4), 571-591.
• Diamond, L. M., Hicks, A. M., & Otter-Henderson, K. (2006). Physiological evidence for repressive coping among avoidantly attached adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(2), 205-229.
• Dozier, M., Stovall-McClough, K. C., & Albus, K. E. (2008). Attachment and psychopathology in adulthood. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 718-744). Guilford Press.
• Fearon, R. P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Lapsley, A. M., & Roisman, G. I. (2010). The significance of insecure attachment and disorganization in the development of children’s externalizing behavior: A meta-analytic study. Child Development, 81(2), 435-456.
• Fearon, R. M. P., Shmueli-Goetz, Y., Viding, E., Fonagy, P., & Plomin, R. (2014). Genetic and environmental influences on adolescent attachment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(9), 1033-1041.
• Feldman, R., Weller, A., Zagoory-Sharon, O., & Levine, A. (2007). Evidence for a neuroendocrinological foundation of human affiliation: Plasma oxytocin levels across pregnancy and the postpartum period predict mother-infant bonding. Psychological Science, 18(11), 965-970.
• Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Overall, N. C. (2020). The science of intimate relationships (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
• Fonagy, P., & Allison, E. (2014). The role of mentalizing and epistemic trust in the therapeutic relationship. Psychotherapy, 51(3), 372-380.
• Fonagy, P., & Luyten, P. (2018). Attachment, mentalization, and the self. In W. J. Livesley & R. Larstone (Eds.), Handbook of personality disorders: Theory, research, and treatment (2nd ed., pp. 123-140). Guilford Press.
• Fonagy, P., Steele, H., & Steele, M. (1991). Maternal representations of attachment during pregnancy predict the organization of infant-mother attachment at one year of age. Child Development, 62(5), 891-905.
• Fosha, D. (2000). The transforming power of affect: A model for accelerated change. Basic Books.
• Fotopoulou, A., & Tsakiris, M. (2017). Mentalizing homeostasis: The social origins of interoceptive inference. Neuropsychoanalysis, 19(1), 3-28.
• Fraley, R. C., Hudson, N. W., Heffernan, M. E., & Segal, N. (2015). Are adult attachment styles categorical or dimensional? A taxometric analysis of general and relationship-specific attachment orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(2), 354-368.
• Fraley, R. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2014). Categories or dimensions? A taxometric analysis of the Adult Attachment Interview. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79(3), 36-50.
• George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1996). Adult Attachment Interview (3rd ed.). Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley.
• Granqvist, P., Sroufe, L. A., Dozier, M., Hesse, E., Steele, M., van IJzendoorn, M., Solomon, J., Schuengel, C., Fearon, P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M., Steele, H., Cassidy, J., Carlson, E., Madigan, S., Jacobvitz, D., Foster, S., Behrens, K., Rifkin-Graboi, A., Gribneau, N., … Duschinsky, R. (2017). Disorganized attachment in infancy: A review of the phenomenon and its implications for clinicians and policy-makers. Attachment & Human Development, 19(6), 534-558.
• Harms, P. D. (2011). Adult attachment styles in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 285-296.
• Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.
• Holmes, J. (2014). The search for the secure base: Attachment theory and psychotherapy. Routledge.
• Johnson, S. M. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy: Creating connection (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Johnson, S. M. (2019). Attachment theory in practice: Emotionally focused therapy (EFT) with individuals, couples, and families. Guilford Press.
• Juffer, F., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2008). Promoting positive parenting: An attachment-based intervention. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Keller, H. (2013). Attachment and culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(2), 175-194.
• Keller, H. (2018). Universality claim of attachment theory: Children’s socioemotional development across cultures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11414-11419.
• Kerns, K. A., & Brumariu, L. E. (2014). Is insecure parent–child attachment a risk factor for the development of anxiety in childhood or adolescence? Child Development Perspectives, 8(1), 12-17.
• Konrath, S. H., O’Brien, E. H., & Hsing, C. (2014). Changes in dispositional empathy in American college students over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 180-198.
• LeVine, R. A., & Norman, K. (2001). The infant’s acquisition of culture: Early attachment reexamined in anthropological perspective. In C. C. Moore & H. F. Mathews (Eds.), The psychology of cultural experience (pp. 83-104). Cambridge University Press.
• Levine, A., & Heller, R. (2010). Attached: The new science of adult attachment and how it can help you find—and keep—love. Penguin.
• Levy, K. N., Meehan, K. B., Kelly, K. M., Reynoso, J. S., Weber, M., Clarkin, J. F., & Kernberg, O. F. (2006). Change in attachment patterns and reflective function in a randomized control trial of transference-focused psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(6), 1027-1040.
• Liotti, G. (2004). Trauma, dissociation, and disorganized attachment: Three strands of a single braid. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41(4), 472-486.
• Lyons-Ruth, K., & Jacobvitz, D. (2008). Attachment disorganization: Genetic factors, parenting contexts, and developmental transformation from infancy to adulthood. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 666-697). Guilford Press.
• Madigan, S., Atkinson, L., Laurin, K., & Benoit, D. (2013). Attachment and internalizing behavior in early childhood: A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 672-689.
• Main, M. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: Recent studies, changing methodologies, and the concept of conditional strategies. Human Development, 33(1), 48-61.
• Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1984). Predicting rejection of her infant from mother’s representation of her own experience: Implications for the abused-abusing intergenerational cycle. Child Abuse & Neglect, 8(2), 203-217.
• Main, M., & Hesse, E. (1990). Parents’ unresolved traumatic experiences are related to infant disorganized attachment status: Is frightened and/or frightening parental behavior the linking mechanism? In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 161-182). University of Chicago Press.
• Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment pattern. In T. B. Brazelton & M. W. Yogman (Eds.), Affective development in infancy (pp. 95-124). Ablex.
• McDaniel, B. T., & Radesky, J. S. (2018). Technoference: Parent distraction with technology and associations with child behavior problems. Child Development, 89(1), 100-109.
• Meaney, M. J. (2001). Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity across generations. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24(1), 1161-1192.
• Mental Health Foundation. (2016). Relationships in the 21st century: The forgotten foundation of mental health and wellbeing. Mental Health Foundation.
• Mesman, J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2016). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and contextual dimensions. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed., pp. 790-815). Guilford Press.
• Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford Press.
• Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Adult attachment and affect regulation. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 503-531). Guilford Press.
• Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2012). An attachment perspective on psychopathology. World Psychiatry, 11(1), 11-15.
• Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Morley, T. E., & Moran, G. (2011). The origins of cognitive vulnerability in early childhood: Mechanisms linking early attachment to later depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(7), 1071-1082.
• Moss, E., Cyr, C., Bureau, J. F., Tarabulsy, G. M., & Dubois-Comtois, K. (2005). Stability of attachment during the preschool period. Developmental Psychology, 41(5), 773-783.
• Moutsiana, C., Fearon, P., Murray, L., Cooper, P., Goodyer, I., Johnstone, T., & Halligan, S. (2014). Making an effort to feel positive: Insecure attachment in infancy predicts the neural underpinnings of emotion regulation in adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(9), 999-1008.
• Neckoway, R., Brownlee, K., & Castellan, B. (2007). Is attachment theory consistent with Aboriginal parenting realities? First Peoples Child & Family Review, 3(2), 65-74.
• NHS England. (2018). Strategic direction for sexual assault and abuse services: Lifelong care for victims and survivors: 2018-2023. NHS England.
• Oldmeadow, J. A., Quinn, S., & Kowert, R. (2013). Attachment style, social skills, and Facebook use amongst adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1142-1149.
• Porges, S. W. (2011). The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions, attachment, communication, and self-regulation. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Powell, B., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., & Marvin, B. (2014). The Circle of Security intervention: Enhancing attachment in early parent-child relationships. Guilford Press.
• Roisman, G. I., & Fraley, R. C. (2023). The future of attachment theory: Challenges and prospects. In P. R. Shaver & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Attachment: Theory, research, and new directions. Guilford Press.
• Roisman, G. I., Padrón, E., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2002). Earned-secure attachment status in retrospect and prospect. Child Development, 73(4), 1204-1219.
• Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J., Pott, M., Miyake, K., & Morelli, G. (2000). Attachment and culture: Security in the United States and Japan. American Psychologist, 55(10), 1093-1104.
• Schmitt, D. P. (2008). Evolutionary perspectives on romantic attachment and culture: How ecological stressors influence dismissing orientations across genders and geographies. Cross-Cultural Research, 42(3), 220-247.
• Schore, A. N. (2001). Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22(1-2), 7-66.
• Siegel, D. J. (2012). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Siegel, D. J. (2020). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Simonds, V. W., & Christopher, S. (2013). Adapting Western research methods to indigenous ways of knowing. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), 2185-2192.
• Simpson, J. A., Collins, W. A., Tran, S., & Haydon, K. C. (2007). Attachment and the experience and expression of emotions in romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 355-367.
• Sroufe, L. A. (2005). Attachment and development: A prospective, longitudinal study from birth to adulthood. Attachment & Human Development, 7(4), 349-367.
• Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins, W. A. (2005). The development of the person: The Minnesota study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood. Guilford Press.
• Stroebe, M., Schut, H., & Boerner, K. (2010). Continuing bonds in adaptation to bereavement: Toward theoretical integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 259-268.
• Tarasuik, J. C., Galligan, R., & Kaufman, J. (2011). Almost being there: Video communication with young children. PLOS ONE, 6(2), e17129.
• Target, M., Fonagy, P., & Shmueli-Goetz, Y. (2003). Attachment representations in school-age children: The development of the Child Attachment Interview (CAI). Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 29(2), 171-186.
• Taylor, P., Rietzschel, J., Danquah, A., & Berry, K. (2015). Changes in attachment representations during psychological therapy. Psychotherapy Research, 25(2), 222-238.
• Thompson, R. A. (2016). Early attachment and later development: Reframing the questions. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed., pp. 330-348). Guilford Press.
• Tottenham, N. (2012). Human amygdala development in the absence of species-expected caregiving. Developmental Psychobiology, 54(6), 598-611.
• Trevarthen, C., & Aitken, K. J. (2001). Infant intersubjectivity: Research, theory, and clinical applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(1), 3-48.
• van den Dries, L., Juffer, F., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2009). Fostering security? A meta-analysis of attachment in adopted children. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(3), 410-421.
• van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Kroonenberg, P. M. (1988). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: A meta-analysis of the Strange Situation. Child Development, 59(1), 147-156.
• van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2008). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and contextual dimensions. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 880-905). Guilford Press.
• Warren, S. L., Huston, L., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1997). Child and adolescent anxiety disorders and early attachment. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(5), 637-644.
• Wiebe, S. A., & Johnson, S. M. (2016). A review of the research in emotionally focused therapy for couples. Family Process, 55(3), 390-407.
• Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. Routledge.
• Yeo, S. S. (2003). Bonding and attachment of Australian Aboriginal children. Child Abuse Review, 12(5), 292-304.
• Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy: A practitioner’s guide. Guilford Press.
• Zeanah, C. H., & Gleason, M. M. (2015). Annual research review: Attachment disorders in early childhood – clinical presentation, causes, correlates, and treatment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(3), 207-222.
• Zeanah, C. H., Smyke, A. T., Koga, S. F., & Carlson, E. (2005). Attachment in institutionalized and community children in Romania. Child Development, 76(5), 1015-1028.
• Zimmermann, P., & Becker-Stoll, F. (2002). Stability of attachment representations during adolescence: The influence of ego-identity status. Journal of Adolescence, 25(1), 107-124.

Further Reading and Research

Recommended Articles

• Cassidy, J., Jones, J. D., & Shaver, P. R. (2013). Contributions of attachment theory and research: A framework for future research, translation, and policy. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4pt2), 1415-1434.
• Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2021). Attachment, parenting, and genetics. Current Opinion in Psychology, 39, 91-97.
• Crittenden, P. M., & Newman, L. (2010). Comparing models of borderline personality disorder: Mothers’ experience, self-protective strategies, and dispositional representations. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 15(3), 433-451.

Suggested Books

• Siegel, D. J., & Bryson, T. P. (2020). The power of showing up: How parental presence shapes who our kids become and how their brains get wired. Ballantine Books.
  • A practical guide for parents that translates attachment research into everyday strategies for creating secure relationships with children.
• Holmes, J. (2017). Attachment in therapeutic practice. SAGE Publications.
  • An essential resource for therapists exploring how attachment theory can inform clinical practice across various therapeutic modalities.
• Gerhardt, S. (2014). Why love matters: How affection shapes a baby’s brain (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  • An accessible integration of attachment theory and neuroscience that explains the critical importance of early relationships for brain development.

Recommended Websites

• The Circle of Security International
  • Provides information about the evidence-based Circle of Security intervention, including training opportunities, resources for parents, and research summaries.
• The International Attachment Network (IAN)
  • Offers conferences, training events, and resources for professionals interested in attachment theory and its applications across clinical, educational, and social care settings.
• The Attachment Research Community (ARC)
  • Focuses on applying attachment theory in educational settings, with practical resources for teachers and school administrators, case studies, and implementation guidance.

Download this Article as a PDF

Download this article as a PDF so you can revisit it whenever you want. We’ll email you a download link.

You’ll also get notification of our FREE Early Years TV videos each week and our exclusive special offers.

Get your PDF Download and FREE Early Years TV Updates

To cite this article use:

Early Years TV Attachment Theory in Early Years Psychology. Available at: https://www.earlyyears.tv/attachment-theory-in-early-years-psychology (Accessed: 17 April 2025).

Kathy Brodie

Kathy Brodie is an Early Years Professional, Trainer and Author of multiple books on Early Years Education and Child Development. She is the founder of Early Years TV and the Early Years Summit.

Kathy’s Author Profile