Your Attachment Patterns Matter in Close Relationships, and They Can Shift

Checked against primary sources by the Editorial Team. Every figure in this article was traced to the study it came from, including the ones that contradict what we previously published. How we review.

This article contains affiliate links. If you buy something through one of them, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. It never changes what we recommend or what we say about it. Advertiser Disclosure.

Have you noticed the same dynamic showing up in different relationships? Different person, different circumstances, and somehow the same argument. Many people search for an explanation, and attachment theory is one of the most popular ones on offer.

It deserves its popularity, with some limits. Here is what the research supports, what it does not, and how to use it without turning it into a label.

Where the idea comes from

Attachment theory began with infants and their caregivers. In 1987, psychologists Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver applied the idea to adult romantic love. They wrote short descriptions of three patterns, secure, avoidant, and anxious or ambivalent, adapted from descriptions of infants, and asked people to pick the one that fit their feelings in close relationships (Source 1).

That was a useful start, and it launched decades of research. It also shaped how the idea spread: as three types, each with a percentage attached.

What those percentages mean

You may have seen figures like 56% secure, 25% avoidant, and 19% anxious. They trace back to the 1987 paper, where they describe a sample of newspaper respondents (Source 1). A second sample of undergraduates in the same paper came out close to 56% secure as well (Source 1). A later overview by R. Chris Fraley summarizes the early work as roughly 60% secure, 20% avoidant, and 20% anxious (Source 2).

So the numbers are a snapshot of who answered one survey and how they chose among three options. They are not a census of how all adults love. We would not build much on them.

Types or dimensions?

This is where the popular version has drifted from the science. Fraley notes that most researchers now measure attachment dimensionally rather than categorically, because attachment styles vary in degree rather than kind (Source 2). A 2015 study tested the question directly with statistical methods designed to tell types from dimensions. Across two samples, individual differences looked more consistent with a dimensional model than a categorical one, for general attachment and for specific relationships such as those with parents and peers (Source 3).

In practice, that means you are probably not "an anxious" or "an avoidant" in the way you might be left handed or right handed. You sit somewhere on a spectrum of worry about closeness and a spectrum of discomfort with it. Both can vary, and the same person can feel and act differently with a parent, a friend, and a partner. Some models also describe a fourth, fearful style, which combines wanting closeness with fearing it.

The quiz result you got online is a rough reading of where you sit, not a diagnosis.

How stable is it?

Here the evidence is more nuanced than "your childhood decides everything" or "you can rewrite yourself at will."

A meta analysis of longitudinal studies found moderate stability in attachment security across the first 19 years of life (Source 4). Moderate means the pattern carries over for many people and still leaves plenty of room for change. A review by Fraley and Roisman adds detail. Early caregiving relates to adult attachment, but the links are weak and inconsistent across ways of measuring it. Attachment styles look more malleable in childhood and adolescence than in adulthood. And early experiences do not determine adult outcomes (Source 5).

That last point is the hopeful one. It is also worth reading alongside Fraley's own caution that researchers still lack a strong understanding of the precise factors that change a person's attachment style (Source 2). Change is possible; a reliable recipe for it is not yet established.

What about "earned security"?

You will often read that a responsive partner can move you toward security, a pattern called earned security. The idea is appealing, and the research on it is mixed. In a 23 year longitudinal study, adults who were classified as earned secure after describing a difficult childhood coherently did not show more early anxious attachment than people who were secure throughout. They had, however, experienced notably supportive parenting in a high risk group, and they showed successful close relationships in young adulthood (Source 6). In other words, the label may describe people whose early environment held more support than their retrospective accounts suggest.

So we cannot tell you that a good partner will reliably rewire you. We can say that early experience does not seal your adult outcomes (Source 5).

Does therapy help?

A meta analysis of 36 studies with 3,158 patients found that people with secure attachment before treatment tended to do better in psychotherapy than insecurely attached patients. It also found that improvements in attachment security during therapy may coincide with better treatment outcomes, and that people with low security at the start may do better in therapies that focus on close relationships (Source 7). Those findings describe associations. They do not show that therapy rewires attachment, and the moderator results were described as preliminary.

If you want a book that applies attachment ideas to couples, one option follows.

A place to start

Notice what happens in your body when someone gets close. A pull to move toward the person, a pull to create distance, and a steady calm are all useful information. You do not need a label for them. You need to see the pattern clearly enough to choose what you do next.

Say it out loud when you can: "I am pulling back because closeness feels risky right now, and I still care." Naming the pattern does not erase it, and no study we reviewed shows that insight alone changes attachment. It does give you a pause in which to respond differently, and that is a reasonable place to begin.