(Photo by Jayson Gaddis, Moab, Utah)
Attachment styles essentially describe the way we adapt emotionally, psychologically, physiologically, and relationally to our family culture and environment. For those of us that know something about attachment, we tend to think insecure attachment is “bad,” and secure attachment is “good.” However, attachment is way more complex than that.
To begin, understand that secure attachment relationships require little adaptation from a child, as there is a sense of relational coherence, attuned connection, and effective co-regulation with one’s caregivers that supports them in just about every area of life. Secure attachments allow a child to be in a mind-body state that is optimal for development, and for navigating the increasing complexities of life and all the relationships that they will create and navigate.
Insecure attachment, however, requires more adaptation from a child, as they must navigate a relational system that isn’t offering them some (or a lot) of the resources they need to be in a mind-body state that is optimal for growth. While insecure attachment formation is an intelligent adaptation to a relational system (your parents, caregivers, or family), we know that it is not optimal for the child. From fields like developmental neuroscience, physiological psychology, and the Polyvagal Theory, we now know that stress occurs when our sense of safety and security isn’t fully on line.
Before anyone decides too quickly that this must mean that an insecure attachment style is bad, I want to be clear that how one adapts, and the attachment style (or styles) that come out of early primary relationships, help us function in what were sometimes really tough relational situations. It helped us get whatever quality of connection we could get that we needed in order to survive and grow. Maybe our parents were going through a really hard time as a couple, or one was in a depression, or suffering a great loss, or dealing with some external stressors that were taking a toll, or had never had the resources or awareness to attend to their childhood trauma. For whatever reason, (and there are many valid ones) they just weren’t as capable of being there for us with all of their resources. We found a way to deal with it, and that is brilliant. There is not something wrong with you for having an insecure attachment style. There is a lot “right” about finding a way to relationally adapt to your circumstances at a time when you had no choice in the matter and needed to depend on whoever was there.
So the upside of insecure attachment is that you adapted to primary relationship stress–the misattunements that went unrepaired, or the lack of attuned co-regulation. The downside is also that you adapted, as adaptation has a price.
Whenever we adapt to something we pay a price somewhere. We want attachment oriented relationships to be secure because this kind of adaptation can have a high price over time. When it comes to attachment adaptations, in the form of insecure attachment, we can refer to the concept of allostatic load (a term coined by McEwan and Stellar, 1993). Allostatic load is the wear and tear on our bodies created by chronic stress over time. When a child adapts to chronic missattunements by their caregivers, ongoing lack of repair, continuous intrusiveness or enmeshment, poor or no co-regulation, let alone a lack of safety or security, this creates physiological and psychological stress for the child. The child adapts to the relational system, but pays for it over time in their overall health. The systems of the body that help us adapt to stress in the short term–our endocrine, immune, digestive, and stress response systems in particular–can contribute to wear and tear on the body in the long term. It works against us eventually if we overuse these stress response systems, as can be the case in the day in and day out of family life, and also during sensitive periods of growth and development–like childhood.
Allostatic load is a big reason that insecure attachment styles are not preferred over time, because they point to relational stress that was chronic, and therefore, has likely taken some toll mentally, emotionally, physically, relationally, or all of the above. It will depend on the amount, duration, and type of stress, and the subjective experience of the particular unique humans in the relationship. How we respond to stress is complex and intersectional, and attachment is so foundational in our development that stress in this area has a significant impact.
Something interesting about insecure avoidant attachment relationships is those kids can look really “good” according to western cultural values of independence, self-reliance, and not being “too needy” or “too emotional.” However, the kids in avoidant attachment relationships do far worse on stress tests during experiments where they purposely elicit attachment system activation. The kids in avoidant attachment relationships internally experience more stress, but don’t show it (we know this from EKGs done during these experiments). These kids can grow into adults who think they are “fine,” don’t have much to say about what is happening inside of them, avoid conflict, have a hard time collaborating, and struggle with interactive regulation within their adult attachment partnerships. They also are quite vulnerable to the wear and tear of allostatic load, as they don’t even realize they are stressed (because a certain level of chronic relational stress is their baseline, the “water they swim in” if you will) by dealing with so much of life on their own and not knowing how to utilize their relationships to support their wellbeing (which, as social mammals, we are all meant to do and built to do).
Insecure anxious attachment relationships create a kid who doesn’t look as “good” or “easy” according to societal values regarding self reliance, containing emotions, and being “fine” on their own. These kids are more “disruptive” to parent’s lives, seem to need a lot more, and seem “harder” than other kids. However, these kids actually grow up with more relational capacities. They have a part of them that wants to feel good in their attachment connections, and has some memory of that being there some of the time. The don’t tolerate well ongoing tension, disconnection, and a lack of communication (nor should anyone, in my opinion!). As adults they might be demanding of their partner’s attention and care, they need to know where they stand, they need a lot of clear, direct communication, but can present angrily or dissatisfied a lot. This can be stressful in a relationship with someone more avoidant, who isn’t in touch with their relational needs, or doesn’t have the skills, and can create a significant amount of conflict if not navigated with a shared understanding of how attachment styles impact adult relationships (yes, more on this coming!).
As you can see, these relational attachment adaptations often reach an expiration date when we get to adulthood and we are in the position of creating our own attachment relationships. This is where we might find out that we have some real relational challenges, or we might see ourselves recreating or re-experiencing the less than ideal, unfair, or deeply stressful attachment relationships of our past. Another reason insecure attachment is not preferred is that it lays down a template for primary relationships that is inherently stressful, unfair, and lacking the nourishment, adaptability, awareness, and orientation towards growth that we need for longevity–and security.
After helping so many people over more than two decades with attachment challenges in their primary relationships, I truly see an amazing opportunity here, one that we come across as we leave home and become autonomous adults. For the first time, we are in the position of choosing our primary attachment figures (typically partners), and we no longer need to adapt to a relational culture already in place. Instead, we get to create the relational culture we want to live in. We start to see that however we adapted in the past will likely only take us so far, and that it is time to grow and develop ourselves in order to have what most of us long for: mutually invested, co-created, power sharing, growth-oriented, sensitive to who we are, values based, (qualities that otherwise encompass what we know as “secure”) partnerships. A secure partnership is more able to create a secure family culture as well, making family life more easeful, enjoyable, and stable, too. (More on creating a secure family culture coming soon).
And finally, moving our relationships in the direction of security, whatever our attachment style may be, can decrease stress on the body and mind, free up systems that have been weighted with the stress of years of adapting to insecure relationships dynamics, and improve our health over time. You will feel more creative, more motivated, more connected to yourself and your values and your loved ones. One day we will have more definitive research on this, but for now, consider finding out for yourself if developing your relationships in the direction of secure principles helps you feel better, in your mind, body, and life. I have no doubt that it will.
SOURCES
Clinical Training with Stan Tatkin, Psy.D, 2014-2024
The Deepest Well: Healing the Longterm Effects of Childhood Adversity, by Nadine Burke Harris, M.D.
The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are, by Daniel J. Siegel, M.D.
The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotion, Attachment, Communication, and Self-Regulation, by Stephen W. Porges
You are a profoundly gifted writer. You perfectly fuse precise technical writing with relatable ease. Thank you for these contributions—you matter so much.