Check out my new post on Substack that revisits and extends below considerations.

These days, I see many social media posts & blogs talking about an “insecure-disorganised adult attachment style”. This is a myth! Let’s have a closer look.

WhatIS disorganised attachment?
Disorganised attachment is a classification derived from observations of child behaviour towards a caregiver – e.g., within the Strange Situation Procedure.

Disorganised attachment behaviours in children indicate conflict (different opposing behavioural patterns like approach and avoidance), confusion and/or apprehension towards the caregiver when the child is distressed.

Disorganised attachment behaviours in children also reflect a state of “fright without solution”. This can be caused by frightening or frightened, alarming or inexplicable caregiver behaviour in response to child distress, or by repeated / major child separations from the caregiver.

Disorganised attachment behaviours in children furthermore reflect some degree of systematic disruption in their attachment system functioning. The child is no longer able to coherently direct their attention to either their caregiver (as in secure or insecure-anxious attachment) or the environment (as in insecure-avoidant attachment).

What IS NOT disorganised attachment?
Disorganised attachment is not another insecure attachment style, nor is it a more extreme form of an insecure-anxious or avoidant attachment style. Secure, insecure-avoidant and anxious attachment styles together belong to the organised attachment styles. Disorganised attachment is a category on its own.

Also, disorganised attachment in children is not the same as a fearful(-avoidant) attachment style in adults. Fearful(-avoidant) attachment is derived from self-report questionnaires in the context of adult romantic relationships. It generally describes a co-occurrence of insecure-anxious and -avoidant attachment elements. There is no empirical evidence of associations between a fearful(-avoidant) attachment style in adult self-report questionnaires and disorganised attachment derived from behavioural observations in children.

Thus, there is no such thing as an insecure-disorganised attachment style in adults! For more information, check out the excellent Explanations of Attachment Theoretical Concepts provided by the Society for Emotion and Attachment Studies (SEAS).

Post on Instagram

Attachment is often described as “good” or “bad”, and as “weak” or “strong”. This is a myth! Let’s have a closer look.

Attachment is our primary social survival strategy. We cannot survive and thrive without it. Attachment ensures our access to co-regulation or social allostasis. We therefore all must be attached to at least one and ideally several attachment figure(s) across the lifespan.

Attachment theory, above all, asks about our attachment quality – how our attachment makes us feel and think within our relationships and whether it is useful and helpful in our everyday life. Just because some attachment patterns are labelled as insecure or disorganised does not make them bad or useless as such.

Our current attachment patterns have emerged as meaningful, appropriate and necessary adaptations to specific environmental demands.

If an attachment figure is consistently unavailable or insensitive, it is useful and helpful to develop avoidant tendencies that increase self-regulation in that relationship. In turn, if an attachment figure acts unpredictably but does sometimes offer vital care and protection, it is useful and helpful to develop anxious tendencies that increase our calls for support to be heard in that relationship.

And if an attachment figure is threatening or neglectful, it still is useful and helpful to develop more extreme self-protection strategies associated with disorganisation in that relationship. As long as we have multiple different attachments so that we always feel sufficiently safe and taken care of. Of course, the above considerations by no means ignore the fact that certain attachments involve a high risk for physical and mental health and thus need to be dealt with immediately and professionally.

Overall, rather than labelling or “diagnosing” attachment patterns in people, we should appreciate both the benefits and risks of secure, insecure and disorganised attachment. We should embrace a balanced and comprehensive behavioural, psychological, physiological and neurobiological (SoNeAt) approach. Only then, we can help everyone to thrive in whatever circumstances they may find themselves.

Post on Instagram

Check out my new post on Substack that revisits and extends below considerations.

Very often, dads are described as “substitute mums” or secondary attachment figures for their kids. This is a myth! Let’s have a closer look.

It is true that attachment theory initially paid little attention to dads. While dads were seen as distant breadwinners and playmates, mums were regarded as kids’ primary attachment figures and child-mother attachment as most important for child development. 

But this was a long time ago and many things have changed since then. Nowadays, there is a lot of research on fathers from an attachment perspective, and attachment theory recognises dads as involved, capable and equal caregivers.

Two recent meta-analyses highlight that mums and dads are equally important in raising children and setting them up for optimal development. 
Kids who had secure attachments to both parents had fewer anxiety and depression symptoms and showed better language skills (compared to kids with one or no secure attachment(s) within their intact, two-parent families). 
There was also no indication for a hierarchy of importance – i.e., which parent kids developed a secure attachment with. Kids with secure attachment only to mum or only to dad did not differ in their mental health and language competence outcomes.

And although another meta-analysis on maternal and parental sensitivity describes some sex-differences, it emphasises that mums’ and dads’ parenting behaviours are more similar than may be expected, and that the impact of maternal and paternal sensitivity on child outcomes is similar, too. Moreover, new findings show that like in mums, attachment representations, reflective functioning and parental sensitivity are also linked in dads. 

Finally, we should be aware that the biological sex of the adult with whom children form a secure attachment is not that important. What matters most is the number of secure attachments children develop within the family network. Kids have also been shown to thrive when developing secure attachments in nontraditional families, like those with same-sex parents. The current discussion should thus not only focus on dads but on any non-birthing parents besides mums.

Also check out my webpage on the social neuroscience of attachment and caregiving in fathers – Caring Dads.

Post on Instagram

The neurobiology of attachment is often explained based on the Triune Brain Model. But this model is a myth and its use misleading. Let’s have a closer look.

The Triune Brain Model divides the human brain into three sections with separate functions: an innermost “reptile brain” for basic survival, a middle “mammalian brain” for emotions, memories and habits, and an outermost “human brain” for language, reasoning and cognitive control. Such an organisation allegedly reflects three successive stages of evolutionary development across species that enabled increasingly complex neural computations and corresponding behaviour. 

Recent neuroscience findings show that the Triune Brain Model is severely flawed. We now know that all vertebrates’ brains comprise the above-mentioned three brain structures, and that the human brain did not linearly evolve from a reptile brain. Thus, the human brain is not an “onion with a tiny reptile inside”. We also know that no brain structure has only one specific function and never works in complete isolation. Instead, our brain is made up of several extended and strongly interconnected neural networks whose activations and deactivations are always in a dynamic balance. 

Why are these considerations relevant for attachment? They are relevant because secure attachment is often linked with high functionality of a “human brain mode”, whereas insecure and disorganised attachment (and trauma) are associated with reverting to an inferior, inappropriate and maladaptive “reptile or mammalian brain mode”. But such a view is wrong. 

Individual differences in attachment can be seen across the entire human brain and equally relate to (positive and negative) emotion processing, cognitive control and mentalizing. Secure, insecure and disorganised attachment (and trauma) are reflected in different co-activation patterns across networks, in an adjustment of the dynamic balance – see our NAMA and NAMDA. And all such adjustments initially represent meaningful and adaptive responses to specific environmental demands. 

The human brain is adaptive, not triune – and this adaptiveness is key, especially for attachment!

Post on Instagram

Blog post by psychotherapist Ana Kozomara-Lund

We often say: the more synchrony, the better for attachment. But this is a myth! Let’s have a closer look.

Synchrony is defined as the coordination of bio-behavioural processes during and shortly after social contact. It unfolds in our behaviour (e.g., eye gaze, vocalisations, touch), physiology (e.g., heart rate), endocrinology (secretion of hormones like oxytocin or cortisol) and brain activity. Synchrony is particularly important for the parent-infant bond, where it shapes infants’ attachment through repeated and contingent interactions with their caregivers.  

Social allostasis is emphasised as one of the key processes that links synchrony with attachment. During social allostasis, caregivers act as external co-regulators of infants’ physiology. For this to work efficiently and successfully, there needs to be a good bio-behavioural matching between parent and child, which reflects high parental sensitivity and attunement to the infant. Unsurprisingly, differences in social allostasis availability and quality predict infant emotional, cognitive and brain development, and likely explain how individual differences in attachment emerge and are neurobiologically embedded across the life span.

Crucially, however, such evidence should not lead us to believe that more synchrony is always better. Particularly during co-regulatory parent-infant interactions as part of infants’ social allostasis, parental overstimulation, intrusiveness and inconsistency are known to predict insecure infant attachment outcomes. For synchrony to be beneficial, it needs to be appropriate and context-dependent and not always indiscriminately high. 

There thus is an “optimum midrange” of synchrony, with both too little and too much synchrony likely being linked to interaction, relationship and attachment difficulties. Accordingly, we recently found increased parent-child brain-to-brain synchrony not only for dyads with securely attached daughters but also for dyads with insecurely attached mothers. More research is needed to further elucidate the exact nature of bio-behavioural synchrony, particularly in relation to attachment.   

Post on Instagram.

Oxytocin (OT) is often labelled the “bonding or love hormone”. Although OT undoubtedly plays an important role in love, sex, childbirth, bonding, attachment and caregiving, this is a myth. Let’s have a closer look!   

The main problem with the “bonding or love hormone” account of OT’s function is an overemphasis on its prosocial and relationship-promoting effects, which goes back to a 2005 study in humans that reported increased trust after a single dose of OT given by nasal spray. 

However, many subsequent studies using a similar procedure were inconclusive and often failed to show the same results. What is more, many studies found OT to actually have negative effects. For example, OT nasal spray administration increased dishonesty/lying,  increased the inclination for aggression and made more anxiously attached participants remember their mother as less caring and close. 

How can we reconcile these opposite roles of OT for human social behaviour, and particularly bonding and attachment? 

A better way to conceptualise OT’s function is to think of it as regulating the saliency of many different cues – positive, negative, social, non-social – depending on a variety of contextual factors. For example, for social relationships, it is beneficial to show both prosocial behaviour towards one’s friends but more wary or even hostile behaviour towards strangers. This is also known as “tend-and-defend” behaviour.

A related but slightly different view suggests that OT is importantly involved in “tend-and-befriend” behaviour, which enhances the desire for social contact particularly in response to stress. Very interestingly, such behaviour is more prominent in individuals with attachment anxiety (versus avoidance). 

Extending this view, a recent theory describes OT as an allostatic hormone that modulates both social and non-social behaviour by maintaining stability through changing environments and predicting future regulatory demands. This account overlaps nicely with our latest thoughts on the link between attachment, allostasis and energy conservation through co-regulation. 

When you read about OT the next time, try to keep these different accounts in mind.

Post on Instagram.

Polyvagal Theory (PVT) is very prominent in the context of attachment and trauma. However, PVT is not supported by current physiology literature. This has important implications. Let’s have a closer look.

PVT suggests that our autonomic nervous system does not only have two sympathetic and  parasympathetic branches, but that the latter further dissociates into a dorsal and a ventral vagal pathway.

An “evolutionarily primitive” dorsal pathway putatively mediates massive heart rate slowing (bradycardia) during extreme threat-induced immobilisation when sympathetic fight-or-flight reactions are less adaptive. Conversely, an “advanced mammalian” ventral pathway allegedly modulates heart rate and self-calming, being enhanced during conditions of safety and positive social contact.

Consequently, PVT implies that the emergence of a ventral pathway coincided with the evolution of “social mammals” from “asocial reptiles”, and that there is a hierarchy within the three autonomic nervous system branches. 

The above (and other) PVT claims are not supported by current physiology literature. There is no scientific evidence for a “dumb” versus a “smart” vagal pathway dichotomy in mammals, nor for bradycardia to be exclusively caused or significantly influenced by a dorsal pathway. 

What are the implications for attachment and trauma? We must appreciate that we don’t get “stuck” in certain “nervous system states” (e.g., in a sympathetic or dorsal vagal state as trauma survivors), and that there is no nervous system state (e.g., a ventral vagal state) that is always more ”desirable” or “human-like”. Such oversimplified explanations are unhelpful as they don’t tell the truth and unnecessarily label certain physiological responses and behaviours as either categorically good or bad.

Attachment and trauma involve complex physiological responses and behaviours maintained by extended and interconnected neurobiological networks (not just the autonomic nervous system or particular branches of it). And these patterns always emerge as meaningful and adaptive responses to particular environmental demands. We need to embrace this complexity and acknowledge its true value.

Post on Instagram

YouTube video by Your Parenting Mojo

The internet is full of specific “parenting hacks” that promise to work for everybody and always lead to secure child attachment development. But this is a myth. Let’s have a closer look.

It is well known and scientifically proven that a secure child-caregiver attachment is beneficial for child social, emotional and cognitive development. Many parents are therefore looking for ways of increasing their children’s attachment security. And this is, of course, a very good thing as such. 

The problem, however, is that many of the suggested attachment “parenting hacks” are not based on attachment theory and science. This means that although they often provide useful and helpful advice on how to raise children in general, there is no evidence that applying them will necessarily and specifically increase children’s attachment security. Furthermore, these “parenting hacks” often are strongly prescriptive – i.e., they instruct parents to do certain things like feeding, sleeping, etc., in a particular way. This can cause real harm, especially if things don’t work out as planned or desired.

Well then, what does attachment theory and science say about secure child attachment development? 

The main message is that for secure child attachment development, the “how” is much more important than the “what”. There are countless ways for parents to interact with their children – each situation is different and each parent-child relationship unique. Something that works today may not work tomorrow, and something that works for one child may not work for another. And this is perfectly fine.

But in all of these different situations and relationships, there are certain principles that – based on current attachment theory and science – are known to help parents foster secure child attachment development. We summarise them in our free-of-charge Babygro Book for Parents as CHATS (cues, history, attachment, talk, synchrony). 

Crucially, these principles are not intended to prescribe parenting advice. Much on the contrary, they intend to empower parents by bringing them trusted, evidence-based information that enables them to feel reassured and confident in their own and unique parenting choices.

Post on Instagram

I often hear that attachment is “right-brain” centred and that there is a general “right-brain” versus “left-brain” dominance for complex behaviours and personality traits. But this is a myth! Let’s have a closer look.

A widespread theory suggests that we are either “right-brained” or left-brained”. Right-brained people are supposedly more intuitive, emotional and creative, while left-brained people are more objective, logical and analytical. The theory originates from Nobel Prize winner Roger Sperry’s research on “split-brain” patients. 

It is, of course, true that different brain areas control different brain functions and that such roles are often lateralized. For example, the right motor cortex controls movement of the left side of the body. And in about 90% of people, there is left-brain dominance linked to right-handedness and language skills.

Yet, such brain specialisation, lateralization and side dominance does not extend to complex behaviours and personality traits. In a large study of over 1000 participants dividing the brain into 7000 regions, no evidence of a general brain-sidedness was found. 

How is this related to attachment? Because attachment behaviour is often emotional and intuitive, many say that it is “right-brain” centred. Furthermore, when this view is combined with the Triune Brain Model (see Attachment Myth-Busting Post #4), particularly insecure attachment is said to not only be “right-brain” centred but primarily maintained in primitive, inferior and unconscious “reptile/mammalian brain” areas.

Consequently, effective psychotherapy in the context of attachment difficulties is sometimes believed to necessitate a specific kind of “unconscious right-brain-to-right-brain communication and regulation strategy”. 

However, modern attachment science clearly shows that attachment is everywhere within the brain. It involves several large-scale networks spanning both hemispheres and involving many different emotional and cognitive processes. Psychotherapy in the context of attachment difficulties therefore needs to find a good balance to address both emotional and cognitive aspects and particularly their intricate interdependence.

Post on Instagram

Blog post by Ana Kozomara-Lund & Pascal Vrticka

Attachment is often linked with threat & fear, and its neurobiological basis centred around the amygdala & HPA axis. But there is much more to it! Let’s have a closer look.

Attachment is a social survival mechanism. It ensures that we seek proximity to attachment figures for co-regulation when we are in distress or need. Threat & fear are vital because they activate our attachment system in the first place. 

The amygdala & HPA axis are two key players in this process. The amygdala rapidly picks up disturbances in our physical or mental balance. Via the HPA axis, it then triggers a cascade of neuroendocrine and physiological changes that prepare us to respond. 

Yet, the amygdala & HPA axis are only two players amongst many others within an extended neural “aversion module” comprising other brain regions and neuroendocrine and physiological pathways. 

And there is more. Once the fear response is established, a specific mechanism needs to be triggered that activates proximity seeking as our primary attachment strategy – rather than “flight-or-fight” or “freeze” behaviour. This is maintained by another extended neural “approach module” that initiates movement towards and sustained interaction with attachment figures. 

Furthermore, the “approach module” encodes the reunion with attachment figures as rewarding and initiates fear response termination, which allows us to return to our physical and mental balance. Important players here are dopamine, oxytocin and endogenous opioids.

Two additional extended networks also come into play. Through repeated and consistent co-regulation experiences, we train our own “emotion regulation module” to more readily and efficiently engage in self-regulation. And within the “mental state representation module”, we build and maintain predictions about future interactions as part of our internal working models (IWMs) of attachment. 

Attachment is everywhere within the brain and related to much more than just threat & fear.

Post on Instagram.

I often see people talking about “parent-child attachment” when they actually refer to “parent-child bonding”. Why is such a distinction important? Let’s have a closer look!

What is child-parent attachment?
An attachment relationship always consists of a “care provider” and a “care seeker”. Within a developmental context, the “care provider” is typically a parent and the “care seeker” a child. The parent functions as the child’s attachment figure towards whom they direct their attachment behaviour in times of distress and need. 

A child-parent attachment relationship may exist even if the parent is unavailable, rejecting or abusive. The quality of care does not determine whether or not an attachment relationship develops, but shapes whether it becomes secure, insecure or disorganised. Also, the quality is relationship specific because it generally does not transfer between attachment relationships.

What is parent-child bonding?
Mutual affectionate bonds exist between any people who are special to one another and seek to remain in contact. Parent-child bonding specifically refers to the process by which a parent develops an affectionate bond with and targets their caregiving behaviours towards their child. 

The parent-child bond’s quality is not described as secure, insecure or disorganised because the child is not the parent’s attachment figure – i.e., the parent does not become attached to their child. 

However, there is evidence for a close link between attachment and caregiving in that a parent’s own attachment history can influence their caregiving behaviours. While avoidantly attached parents are more likely to engage in “deactivated caregiving” characterised by coldness and distance, anxiously attached parents are more likely to display “hyperactivated caregiving” characterised by distress. Both caregiving strategies are less effective and helpful for children.

Conclusion
While bonding and attachment are closely related and the underlying neurobiological caregiving and attachment systems overlapping and complementary, they are not the same. This distinction should be reflected in our use of terminology.

Post on Instagram

A lot of current parenting advice recommends parents to be constantly “in sync” with their kids: to be physically close and attuned to their children and to anticipate and immediately respond to their every need. But this is a myth! Let’s have a closer look.

Yes, attachment theory and research do show that higher parental sensitivity and reflective functioning are beneficial for child development and secure attachment formation. It is helpful if parents are emotionally available, skilled in reading their children’s cues and promptly and sensitively respond to their needs. Especially when children are young.

Yet, parenting advice based on these principles very often misses and misrepresents several important details – despite its good intentions.

We know that for about 50-70% of the time, parents and kids are not “in sync”. They rather engage in a constant “social dance” comprising attunements, mismatches and repairs. And it’s this flow of connection, disconnection and reconnection that offers children an ideal mixture of parental support and moderate, useful stress that helps growing children’s social brains.

We also know that there can be negative consequences to parents and children constantly being “tuned in” to each other. It can increase relationship stress and raise the risk for insecure child attachment. Especially if it is associated with parental overstimulation or too high parental and child responsitivity.

Well then, what should parents do? Most importantly, parents should not feel that they must be “in sync” with their kids all the time and at all costs. High parent-child attunement can also reflect interaction difficulties and can often add up to parental burnout, further negatively impacting the parent-child relationship.

It suffices for parents to be “good enough” – to be available when children need them rather than “always on”. What really counts is that the relationship functions well overall. That children can develop trust in their parents and that any mismatches, which naturally occur all the time, are successfully repaired. That’s the true essence of attachment theory!

I recently wrote about the above in The Conversation UK.

Post on Instagram

Contrary to what its name suggests, “attachment parenting” (AP) is not based on attachment theory (AT). Parenting advice building on evidence-based knowledge from extended research that keeps informing AT should thus not be confused with recommendations from AP or similar other “intensive parenting” movements. Let’s have a closer look!

AP is a parenting philosophy developed by William Sears and Martha Sears during the 1980s. Its central ideas are based on their own parenting experiences and observations from their paediatric practice. There is no direct link to AT, and the name AP only emerged later – initially, the parenting philosophy was called “the new continuum concept” and “immersion mothering”. 

Although AP advocates for parents’ emotional responsiveness towards their children, it does so in a strongly prescriptive way linked to its seven “Baby Bs”: e.g., it proposes to breastfeed only, wearing infants on the body as much as possible and always sleeping very close to the baby. Crucially, these prescriptions are often understood to yield secure child attachment development as such. Yet, very little research and scientific evidence exist that would support such claims.

What is more, AP and other “intensive parenting” movements very often make parents feel that they need to be “perfect” – highly attuned to their children and able to anticipate and immediately respond to their every need at all times. However, such constant pressure to be “perfect” often leads to unhealthy impacts on both parents and their children, including parental burnout. 

Of course, AT does encourage parents to be emotionally available, skilled in reading their children’s cues and promptly and sensitively respond to their needs (i.e., parental sensitivity and reflective functioning). Especially when children are young. However, it also clearly says that it suffices for parents to be “good enough” – to be available when children need them rather than “always on”. What really counts is that the relationship functions well overall. That children can develop trust in their parents and that any mismatches, which naturally occur all the time, are successfully repaired.

Post on Instagram.

Many people are unaware that there is no single measure of attachment. Instead, there are many different attachment measures inspired by different psychology traditions that often yield different results. Let’s have a closer look!

Attachment theory and research are inspired by two different psychology traditions: developmental psychology and social psychology. Each tradition is concerned with different attachment processes and uses its own attachment measures.

The developmental psychology tradition mainly focuses on child-caregiver attachment or the recollection thereof by adults. Its measures are based on behavioural observations (e.g., the Strange Situation Procedure – SSP) and interviews (e.g., the Adult Attachment Interview – AAI). 

The social psychology tradition looks at attachment in adulthood within romantic (or sometimes other close) relationships. Its measures are based on self-reports (e.g., the Experiences in Close Relationships [ECR] questionnaire). 

Why is it important to be aware of these differences? 

Each attachment measure yields different results. This particularly concerns disorganisation. There only is a disorganised attachment style in children (i.e., when assessed with the SSP) but not in adults (i.e., neither the AAI nor the ECR yield a disorganised attachment style), and disorganisation in children is different from insecurity. Thus, there is no such thing as an insecure-disorganised attachment style in adults. 

But even for secure and insecure attachment, it’s complicated. It matters whether someone’s attachment is derived from their observed behaviour towards others as in the SSP in children. Or their verbal recollections of early relationships reflecting attachment representations (Internal Working Models) as in the AAI. Or their self-reported feelings and behaviours within romantic (or sometimes other close) adult relationships as in the ECR. Unsurprisingly, when attachment in the same person is repeatedly assessed with different measures, the results are often quite different. 

When you read about attachment the next time, try to check how attachment was measured and which psychology tradition is used to explain the results.

Post on Instagram.

There is a big difference between attachment measures yielding insecure, disorganised and unresolved attachment classifications and clinical diagnoses of attachment disorders or other disturbances associated with attachment difficulties. Let’s have a closer look!

The social psychology attachment tradition mainly uses self-reports like the ECR. The ECR can identify secure and insecure-avoidant, -anxious and -fearful(-avoidant) attachment. Crucially, all these attachment styles represent individual differences or personality traits – how people think about the availability and responsiveness of close others and of being near to and depending on them. Although self-reports can be prone to certain biases, attachment questionnaires are useful for research in large samples. They should, however, not be used as (self-)diagnostic tools in single individuals. 

The developmental psychology attachment tradition mainly uses behavioural observation in children (e.g., SSP) and interviews (e.g., AAI) in adults. Both approaches yield categorisations of secure, insecure-avoidant and -anxious attachment. The SSP furthermore identifies child disorganisation (see also here), and the AAI unresolved adult attachment. However, the latter categories are not clinical diagnoses of attachment disorders or other attachment-related disturbances. 

Attachment disorders are only clinically diagnosed in children. They are part of the DSM-5 category trauma- and stressor-related disorders and take two forms: (1) Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) and (2) Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder (DSED). They need to be independently diagnosed by a trained paediatric psychiatrist or psychologist.

Unresolved adult attachment reflects unresolved experiences of trauma usually involving maltreatment or the loss of attachment figures. But it is also not a clinical diagnosis of a disorder of any sort. That said, the unresolved category is clearly overrepresented in clinical samples and is even thought to be “an almost perfect marker for dissociative disorders like PTSD”. Still, any disorders associated with adult attachment difficulties, like PTSD, require a separate diagnostic procedure by trained experts.

Post on Instagram

Attachment theory has a long and rich history of scientific research across many domains and species, including psychology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience. Most recently, a strong focus has been directed towards the social neuroscience of human attachment (SoNeAt). 

SoNeAt uses a range of tools to study the neurobiological and brain basis of human attachment. This includes physiology (e.g., heart rate), endocrinology (e.g., secretion of hormones like oxytocin and cortisol), genetics and epigenetics, brain activity, structure and connectivity, and hyperscanning (e.g., bio-behavioural synchrony). 

Using these SoNeAt tools is vital to gain a full understanding of human attachment – beyond what can be observed behaviourally (e.g., SSP), extracted from interviews (e.g., AAI) and derived from self-reports (e.g., ECR). 

However, we need to keep two very important things in mind when using SoNeAt data to understand human attachment.

First, SoNeAt data is complicated. There hardly ever is a perfect one-to-one mapping of behaviour or subjective experience to a specific brain activation pattern, genetic and epigenetic profile, or neurotransmitter secretion level. For example, there is no simple way of “increasing the bonding hormone oxytocin” – through a specific type of therapy or by nasal spray – for everybody to become more securely attached. And there is no quick fix with which it is possible to “rewire” our brains in just a couple of days to overcome trauma and attachment difficulties. 

Second, SoNeAt data is constantly evolving. New findings keep emerging and extending older ones. And sometimes, new findings yield novel insights that necessitate existing theories and beliefs to be replaced. That is the natural course of science. The problem is that these extensions and replacements are not always readily picked up by the public, practitioners, therapists, social services etc. This leads to the persistence of outdated concepts and beliefs like the right versus left brain dominance account, the triune brain model, polyvagal theory and many more.

We need SoNeAt data to fully understand human attachment, but it is only helpful when used properly.

Post on Instagram

Recently, I saw several posts that compare attachment theory to astrology. One of them says that attachment styles ought to be used similarly to horoscopes, because they are “useful rather than true”. Is it helpful to compare attachment styles to horoscopes, and why did such a comparison arise in the first place? Let’s have a closer look!

By studying the neurobiology of human attachment, I do – of course – believe in attachment as a science. Attachment theory is built upon a rich and diverse history of scientific investigation that goes back almost a century, and many novel insights have emerged particularly within the last decade (e.g., our NAMA and NAMDA). To me, it therefore appears unreasonable to compare attachment theory to the pseudoscience of astrology. 

But there is more to it. Attachment styles are compared to horoscopes because “[they] explain everything, until [they] explain nothing.” Accordingly, one criticism is that – particularly in popular books and on social media – attachment styles are sold as all-encompassing categories to explain all of our behaviours in, and beliefs about relationships. Unfortunately, such a use inevitably leads to oversimplification and overgeneralization with a loss of scientific accuracy and rigour. 

Another criticism of relating attachment theory to astrology is concerning the aspect of predetermination. Popularised attachment theory is often used in a fatalistic manner, in that our early attachment patterns are propagated to predetermine most – if not all – of our adult relationship outcomes, which creates many “self-fulfilling prophecies”. And unfortunately, those individuals who are most likely to put too much faith in such mistaken beliefs are the ones whose emotional and mental health is most vulnerable. 

As unreasonable the comparison between attachment theory and astrology may seem, it is also very insightful. It clearly shows that there is a great need to bring science back into our discussions about attachment, and especially so in popular books and on social media. I hope that my Attachment Myth-Busting, Attachment Science and Attachment Q & A Series can help, if only a little.

Post on Instagram.

What is the current evidence on nursery daycare (hereafter ‘childcare’) attendance and its effect on child-parent attachment? Let’s have a closer look!

I am using three sources for my considerations: (1) The NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD; 1997 & 2001); (2) a study by Bernier et al. (2024); and (3) a commentary by Vermeer & Bakermans-Kranenburg (2008). Please note that there only is data on child-mother attachment so far. Nonetheless, several important findings emerge.

There is no indication of a detrimental effect of childcare attendance on child-mother attachment as such. Thus, we can’t – and shouldn’t – say that sending children to childcare necessarily and inevitably harms their attachment. 

However, there is indication of several protective and risk factors. Two of them appear most important: (1) maternal sensitivity (i.e., parenting quality at home); and (2) childcare quality (behaviourally observed sensitivity, involvement, and stimulation provided by early years teachers). 

Attending high-quality childcare can be a protective factor. If children have mothers with low sensitivity, attending high-quality childcare can help children foster their attachment security by compensating for the experience of low-quality parenting at home. 

Conversely, attending low-quality childcare can be a risk factor. The lowest proportion of secure child attachment is observed in children who have mothers with low sensitivity and attend low-quality childcare.

What are the main implications of these findings? When focussing on child attachment, policies and services should not only support parents to provide the best possible environment for children at home. They should also ensure the best quality of childcare provision by offering attachment training to early years teachers and ensuring adequate staff-to-child ratios. 

Finally, some questions remain. What about child attachment to additional caregivers (including other family members like fathers and grandparents, but also early years teachers)? And what about child temperament? More research is needed to further extend and deepen our knowledge. 

Post on Instagram.

Research on attachment and neurodivergence is sparse. However, sufficient data for first tentative conclusions is available on children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Let’s have a closer look!

For quite some time, children with ASD were thought to be unable to form attachments. Yet, a recent meta-analysis in a small but notable sample of 186 children with ASD found that 47% of them were classified as secure (in the SSP). This is an important finding, which shows that almost half of children with ASD can and do form secure attachments.

Nonetheless, these results also suggest that children with ASD are more likely to form insecure attachments – compared to neurotypical children for whom the prevalence of secure attachment usually is around 60%. 

An important question therefore is what can be done to enhance neurodivergent children’s chances to form secure attachments. In the context of ASD, David Oppenheim and colleagues suggest to foster both mothers’ and fathers’ “insightfulness and resolution” – i.e., parents’ capacity to see things from the child’s point of view, to accept the child’s challenging behaviour, and to be open to new information about the child, as well as parents coming to terms and accepting their child’s diagnosis. 

Debra Brause rephrased the above nicely as follows: “Knowing … that differences in eye contact or body positioning are just neuro-differences and not signifiers of rejection of … affection can help mothers be more responsive, interrupting the negative feedback loop of parents becoming angry, depressed, or distant by reacting to feeling rejected by their children. There is no one way to be attached.”

Despite these considerations, several challenges prevail. For example, it remains to be seen whether the common attachment measures used in neurotypical children like the SSP also remain fully valid in neurodivergent children. And there is concern about difficulties clinicians have in differentiating symptoms of “attachment difficulties”, attachment disorders and ASD, which contributes to misdiagnosis, yielding poor advice and support for parents and families. More research is clearly needed.

Post on Instagram

It’s often said that attachment styles are set in stone. That once they develop during infancy, we will keep them for the rest of our life. But is that really so? Let’s have a closer look!

On the one hand, there is evidence for stability. Different studies – one of them spanning 59 years – show that once formed, our attachment styles have the tendency to remain relatively stable across time. This particularly applies to secure attachment, which is the optimal state of a “natural balance” that we most likely develop and tend to keep.

On the other hand, there is also growing evidence for change. In children, insecure attachment styles (and disorganisation) are the least stable, and there is greater movement toward security than toward insecurity. Moreover, anxious attachment tends to be high in adolescence and to increase into young adulthood, before declining through life. Avoidant attachment shows less change with age, but also starts higher in adolescence and then declines.

How and when does such change happen? It mostly happens in association with significant life events – e.g., during the transition to parenthood, relationship formation/support and conflict/breakup, and through traumatic experiences. Many of these life events occur naturally in late adolescence and early adulthood, which explains why change is more likely during this life stage. Furthermore, change can happen anytime as part of therapy, especially through specialised attachment-based interventions.

The above evidence underscores the importance of early relationships. They set the stage for the development of our attachment styles, which tend to remain rather stable and associate with our social skills and behavioural problems later in life. 

However, our attachment styles are not set in stone. They can and do change across the lifespan. There are periods where change is more likely to happen naturally, and change can be brought upon through therapy anytime. It’s just that change does not come too easily, as it is often associated with significant life events or an active and sustained effort, the latter being most efficient if helped by a trained therapist.

Post on Instagram

Infant crying is one of the most challenging behaviours for parents. Unsurprisingly, there has been a sustained interest for evidence-based advice, including from attachment theory. But what does the evidence actually say? Let’s have a closer look!

Crying is a crucial infant attachment behaviour to elicit proximity to and protection from caregivers. Bell and Ainsworth (1972) already focused on infant crying and parental responses during the first year after birth. They showed that “… the single most important factor associated with a decrease in frequency and duration of crying … is the promptness with which a mother responds to cries”. 

Yet, two more recent studies found different results. Hubbard & van Ijzendoorn (1991) reported that delayed instead of prompt responses to crying reduced the number of cry bouts during the first half-year after birth. And Bilgin & Wolke (2020) found that occasionally or often ‘leaving infants to cry-it-out’ during the first 6 months was not associated with adverse behavioural development and attachment at 18 months. 

The conclusion therefore is clear. We simply do not have enough evidence for either claim – neither that “babies cannot be spoiled”, nor that parents should always leave their babies to “cry-it-out”. Each infant-parent interaction is different and there are no easy parenting hacks that work the same for everybody and at all times. 

Importantly, we should use this discussion as a vital lesson on how (not) to translate research findings into practical advice.

Bell & Ainsworth’s findings that infant crying should always be stopped quickly were generalised without any further replication, and despite extensive criticism. Nonetheless, such advice eventually became known as Ainsworth’s most important contribution to the popular parenting literature.

We clearly need more research on the association between infant crying, parental responsiveness and infant attachment. Studies like the two more recent ones mentioned above are a first and important step into the right direction. But even these studies need further replication and extension before any general advice can be generated.

For a very insightful discussion on this quite controversial topic amongst the scientific community, please see here and here.

Post on Instagram.

One of attachment theory’s earliest and strongest propositions is that variation in attachment (security versus insecurity) is entirely determined by the quality of care we receive as children. Or, in other words, that the main driving force of attachment development is environmental and not about our genes. But is that really true? Well, yes and no. 

On the one hand, there is quite strong evidence from twin studies that attachment in infancy is not heritable. At this developmental stage, the genetic contributions to attachment seem to be very small and strongly outweighed by the environment. And this makes sense from an evolutionary perspective: infants do not inherit a fixed attachment pattern so that they remain flexible to changing environmental circumstances, and especially to changing parenting strategies.

On the other hand, there also is quite strong evidence that in adolescence (around the age of 15 years), a non-negligible amount of variance in attachment (~40%) is linked to genetics. Therefore, as attachment changes during the course of development, our genes appear to start playing a somewhat stronger role. 

What does this mean? It means that when we grow older, we come to play a greater role in shaping our own environments. We evoke specific responses from others, and we choose to engage in relationships that align with our own expectations and preferences. And these processes seem to have a stronger genetic component. 

But still, even in adolescence, environmental factors seem to remain the main driving force of attachment differences with ~60%. Similarly, no consistent associations between attachment styles and specific genetic profiles have been described to date in adults. 

Overall, attachment most likely emerges, develops and changes through a tight interaction between genes and the environment, an interaction between nature and nurture. We therefore need more research that studies the influence of the environment on gene expression. This field of research is called epigenetics, and we have quite a few very interesting papers on the epigenetics of attachment in preparation 🙂. So stay tuned for more!

Post on Instagram.

Attachment theory postulates that attachment is transmitted from one generation (i.e., caregivers) to the next (i.e., children), and that caregiver sensitivity (i.e., the ability to infer the meaning of children’s behaviour and to respond to them promptly and appropriately) is a key driver of this process. But is that really so? Let’s have a closer look!

The latest meta-analysis on intergenerational attachment transmission from 2016 looked at 95 studies in almost 5000 individual caregiver-child pairs. For caregivers’ attachment representations, it included attachment classifications derived from the Adult Attachment Interview. For children’s attachment, behavioural measures (like the Strange Situation Paradigm) were considered, with child age between 1 to 7 years.

Results revealed reliable but modest (i.e., explaining ~30% of variance) evidence that children of secure (autonomous) caregivers more likely develop a secure attachment style. Conversely, the findings for avoidant (dismissive) and anxious (preoccupied/resistant) attachment transmission were much more mixed, with no clear patterns visible. Results also revealed that caregiver sensitivity was a reliable but modest (i.e., explaining ~25% of variance) predictor of intergenerational attachment transmission. 

These results show what attachment researchers call the “transmission gap”. Yes, there is consistent evidence for a caregiver-child attachment (security) status association and for caregiver sensitivity playing an important role. But many questions about the exact mechanisms of transmission and other involved variables remain. 

We thus need a broader view and investigation of intergenerational attachment transmission. For example, we should look at child attachment to multiple caregivers (including dads) and the potential role of caregiver-child synchrony in association with parental reflective functioning and “good enough” parenting. Or at additional genetic and environmental variables like child temperament, child and parent gender, caregivers’ relationship status, family functioning and sociodemographic risk factors – summarised as ecological constraints.   

Post on Instagram

On social media and in the popular press, avoidantly attached people are often portrayed as ‘selfish’, ‘uncaring’ and ‘uninterested in relationships’. But this is a myth. Let’s have a closer look!

It is our primary (secure) attachment strategy to reach out for others’ help if we feel threatened, distressed or ill. However, this strategy only works if others are readily available and responsive. When our support-seeking attempts repeatedly fail, we not only feel bad due to being constantly rejected. Reaching out for help also becomes too costly for our mental and physical resources. It therefore makes perfect sense to not let emotions arise that usually trigger support-seeking behaviour and to focus on self-regulation – a secondary attachment strategy that we call “individual fight”. 

Yet, crucially, engaging in “individual fight” does not mean to become self-centred, unloving and relationship aversive. Avoidantly attached people often want to and do engage in relationships. Their neurobiological patterns based on past relationships just make it harder for them to find the right balance between allowing a deep emotional and physical connection versus staying invulnerable and self-reliant. 

For example, attachment avoidance involves emotion suppression – the aim not to feel and express emotions. Both positive and negative ones. Because in the past, it was not safe to do so. But these emotions are still there, and once a secure space is created for them to re-emerge, it can be strongly liberating and empowering.

Attachment avoidance also sets up the brain and body to be always alert and ready should anything bad happen. To be in a high surveillance and energy state. Because of the expectation that nobody will be there to help. It takes time to re-adjust the mental and physical “baseline” and to develop trust in others’ availability and helpfulness. Yet, once this happens, strongly fulfilling and enduring relationships can develop. 

There is nothing that prevents avoidantly attached people from thriving within relationships. They may just need a bit more time and support – sometimes including professional guidance – to free and harvest their full potential.

Post on Instagram

Time-outs were introduced as a ‘nonviolent parenting procedure’ in the 1960s. The term ‘time-out’ is short for ‘time out from positive reinforcement’. Using time-outs for disciplining children thus requires (i) the presence of a reinforcer (e.g., attention, praise and social interaction during a board game) and (ii) the removal from access to this reinforcer for a specified time period (e.g., sending the child to a corner of the room or a chair positioned away from the game). 

Although there is no empirical evidence that time-outs are ineffective or harmful, two Time magazine articles (2014 and 2016) claimed exactly that. As the first article seemed to have caused quite a stir, only a month later, the same authors wrote that time-outs were ‘reasonable’ and ‘supported by the research as helpful for many children’, but only if used ‘appropriately’ – i.e.,  ‘infrequently, calmly, with lots of support and connection and positive support’. Conversely, they related an ‘inappropriate’ use of time-outs to ‘frequent, prolonged and done as a punishment and coupled with parental anger and frustration’. 

The above distinction is crucial from an attachment perspective. Discipline strategies must not threaten or break the child-parent attachment bond but rather enhance it. It should be clear for children that time-outs are brief and predictable ‘separations’ due to a problematic behaviour, not about isolating or abandoning them without a chance for a successful reunion.

An ‘appropriate’ time-out needs to say: “You are loved, you are my child, you are safe, this is not about you or us, it is just about this instance of your negative behaviour”. The message should be that the caregiver still cares about the child, does not approve of their current negative behaviour, but believes in their capacity to demonstrate self-control and positive behaviour.

When implemented within these guidelines, time-outs are an effective and positive discipline strategy with the potential to enhance children’s development and mental health. Yet, further research is needed to confirm their effectiveness and safety with children who have a history of trauma exposure.

Post on Instagram.

Attachment trauma (AT) is highly complex. To fully understand its true nature, an integrative framework spanning many different disciplines is necessary. Zagaria et al. (2024) just published such an integrative framework. Let’s have a closer look!

The authors define AT as “varying and long-lasting biological, psychological, and relational consequences resulting from incomplete encoding and integration of emotionally overwhelming experiences within an attachment relationship”.

What are the main takeaways from this new integrative definition?

1) The traditional view of trauma as simply “an adverse event” is problematic. No event can be universally classified as traumatic. Instead, the focus should be on understanding how responses to and consequences of adverse events vary across individuals as a function of, i.e., an individual’s susceptibility/sensitivity, the specific type of traumatic event, age of exposure, gender, and wider environmental factors, especially the (perceived) availability of social support. 

2) All responses to and consequences of adverse events are seen as initially adaptive, meaningful and often necessary – not inevitably and solely negative. There thus also is an element of resilience. Of course, even initially useful responses can have maladaptive consequences, yielding challenges in attachment relationships and overall functioning.

3) We need objective measures of AT derived from social neuroscience to complement subjective reports and behavioural observations. Only by investigating the underlying neurobiology of AT can we learn how it affects the body and mind and develop new, targeted interventions.   

4) AT can arise anytime. Not only in children but also in adults without prior childhood trauma. The attachment system is not only important early in life but remains active throughout our lifespan. We therefore need to broaden our understanding beyond childhood experiences.

Overall, this new definition has the potential to bridge the gap between attachment theory and trauma theory, fostering a more integrated understanding of the profound and enduring impact of adverse experiences within close relationships.

Post on Instagram.

A new area of research suggests that trauma and attachment insecurities experienced by one generation can be directly passed down to the following generations without changes to either generation’s DNA. This is called transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (TEI). Is there reliable evidence for TEI in humans? Let’s have a closer look!

TEI involves heritable modifications in gene expression that are due to alterations in DNA’s packaging proteins (e.g., histones) or additions of chemical tags (e.g., methylation). They change how readily a given DNA sequence is transcribed and thus how (in)active certain genes are. 

But here is where it gets complicated. TEI requires these modifications to occur in the germline – sperm or egg cells. Only these cells form the next generation. Modifications in any other cell types will not be passed down.

Furthermore, there are two “reprogramming” phases in early human development during which most epigenetic marks are erased. This is nature’s way of ensuring each new human life starts with a clean slate. 

One big question, and source of controversy, is how some epigenetic marks escape these reprogramming phases in humans. Several possible mechanisms are currently discussed, including alterations in RNA. 

Another controversy surrounding TEI in humans stems from the difficulty of isolating its effects. Studies suggesting links between parental trauma and offspring’s mental health face significant challenges, because factors like shared genes, learned behaviours and socioeconomic circumstances can mimic TEI’s effects. 

Finally, while some studies in mice show TEI of trauma, extrapolating these findings to humans requires caution. Human studies often rely on retrospective reports of trauma, which can be subjective.

In summary, while the idea of TEI is fascinating, its role in humans, and particularly in the context of trauma and attachment insecurity, remains debated. The mechanisms by which epigenetic marks might escape reprogramming and influence future generations are still being investigated. It’s crucial to interpret findings cautiously and avoid oversimplification.

Video by the UK Trauma Council   

Post on Instagram

There is a growing trend of adding neuroscience explanations to claims about attachment. Sometimes, this approach is helpful and insightful. Unfortunately, more often than not, the result is clearly “neurobollocks”. Let’s have a closer look!

When recently googling “attachment neuroscience”, my search returned about 17 million results in less than 0.3 seconds. As a social neuroscience of human attachment (SoNeAt) researcher, one part of me was very happy about this outcome. It was great to see such strong interest in the neurobiology of attachment.

Yet, while scrolling through the results, I remembered three recent blog posts (here, here & here) by Ana Kozomara-Lund about “neurobollocks” – an informal term for simplistic, misleading claims that misuse neuroscience to lend credibility to ideas.

In my Attachment Myth-Busting Series, I already described and debunked quite a few of the most common attachment neurobollocks. Here, I would like to reflect upon what neurobollocks is, why we so readily fall for it, and what we can do to make things better.

Not all neurobollocks is created equal. Some of it is unintentional, involves common misunderstandings and/or oversimplifications and often happens without malicious intent. However, it can also result from deliberate misapplication and/or use of neuroscience jargon without legitimate scientific evidence to sell products or services.

As accidental neurobollocks can be, it strongly influences our judgment. It is well known that we are more likely to engage with and believe in a psychological concept if it is combined with a neuroscience explanation – even if the latter is completely irrelevant and/or factually wrong. And this effect is particularly strong if we are non-experts in the matter at hand.

The implications of the above are twofold. When creating content with a neuroscience element, we must always check our scientific sources for their current validity and carefully balance accessibility with accuracy. And as consumers, we need to remain vigilant and sceptical – the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the required proof!

Post on Instagram

I often hear that we ‘get stuck’ in a ‘brain or nervous system state’, especially in relation to insecure attachment and trauma. This view is based on the Triune Brain Model, Right Brain vs Left Brain Model and Polyvagal Theory. Let’s have a closer look!

What do these accounts have in common? They assume that our brain consists of discrete, isolated circuits and layers that can independently turn on or off. And a simple one-to-one mapping between distinct brain or physiological states and corresponding psychological states with a hierarchical evolution, development and organisation – i.e., some states being ‘older’, more ‘primitive’, ‘instinctive’ and ‘animal-like’.

It is said that we can ‘get stuck’ in a ‘dorsal vagal’ or ‘sympathetic nervous system’ state governing freeze or fight or flight responses that are mediated by the ‘Lizard Brain’ or ‘Mammalian Brain’ and are strongly right lateralised. Such states allegedly preclude the activation of a ‘ventral vagal nervous system state’ of ‘Social Engagement’ as well as the involvement of a ‘Human Brain state’ and the ‘left brain’.

Modern neuroscience does not support such accounts of brain evolution, neurobiological and physiological hierarchy and compartmentalisation.

Our brain has an active role in constructing the meaning of physiological changes. There is no uniform and causal link from a specific brain or nervous system state to a specific psychological outcome – e.g., the same change in heart rate can be interpreted as excitement or anxiety, depending on where and by whom it is experienced.

If insecure attachment or trauma make us feel persistently anxious, we aren’t simply ‘stuck’ in a certain brain or physiological state. It means that our brain’s ongoing prediction and interpretation of external and bodily signals happens within a context of perceived threat.

Rather than being a reactive organ with fixed physiological and neural circuits, our brain is highly adaptive, constantly anticipating and making meaning of the external world and our internal milieu. This ongoing process of construction and prediction naturally prevents us from becoming ‘stuck’ in any single brain or nervous system state.

Post on Instagram.

Mirror neurons (MNs) were first discovered and further studied in macaque monkeys in the 1990s. Researchers found that monkeys’ premotor cells activated both when monkeys performed an action and when they observed other monkeys performing the same action.

Such findings quickly turned into sensationalist claims that MNs are a “revolution in understanding social behaviour”, the “cells that read minds”, and that they “will do for psychology what DNA did for biology”.

These claims implied that MNs are our only innate and automatic mechanism for empathy – i.e., to understand what others are feeling –, with social interaction difficulties explained by a “broken-mirror theory”. And in relation to early child-caregiver interactions, MNs were regarded as infants’ genetically hardwired toolkit for developing attachment bonds through imitation (and parental mirroring).

More recent evidence, however, suggests a different story.

We now know that MNs are not necessary or sufficient for all forms of social understanding. We can infer others’ feelings and intentions not only through shared emotion representations triggered by action observation, but also by reflecting about others’ mental states. In fact, MNs are nowadays thought to mainly recognise actions as such, rather than their intention.

Furthermore, latest data does not support the notion of an “innate mirror mechanism” in infants – i.e., that MNs enable automatic and pre-reflective understanding of others’ emotions (and minds) from birth. Instead, findings show that MNs are highly malleable and significantly shaped by individual learning experiences, culture, and socialisation across development.

Overall, it’s crucial to move beyond simplistic “mind-reading” interpretations of MNs. While their discovery was groundbreaking, they aren’t hard-wired, innate “empathy switches”. Embracing MNs true complexity reveals their function as dynamic, learned systems, highly malleable and shaped by experiences and social interactions. This richer view helps us better capture how MNs contribute to social understanding and attachment in intricate ways, alongside many other (neural) processes.

Post on Instagram.

What do attachment theory and Buddhism have in common, and how do they differ in their perceptions of (non)attachment, security, avoidance and anxiety? Let’s have a closer look!

Both approaches emphasise the importance of supportive social relationships, including giving and receiving love. They also share common goals of minimising anxious clinging, avoidant detachment, and the resolution of unwanted thoughts and other mental experiences. However, their core understanding of security differs significantly.

Attachment theory links security to mental representations of a reliably loved self and responsive caregivers. This is because it regards the availability of significant others for co-regulation in times of need as our primary and necessary social survival strategy.

Buddhism defines genuine security or happiness (“sukha”) as enduring flourishing from mental balance and undistorted insight into reality. A key principle is that seeking lasting security in impermanent external objects, relationships, etc., leads to suffering.

The Buddhist concept of “nonattachment” therefore means a release from mental fixations. This isn’t a lack of, or too strong concern with intimacy linked to avoidant or anxious attachment. It’s a more general ease and balance of mental representations, both within and beyond close relationships.

Research tentatively supports these distinctions. Buddhist nonattachment uniquely predicts lower closed-mindedness (a desire to maintain a sense of permanence of cherished personal beliefs), even when accounting for individual differences in attachment. It may “unfreeze” cognitive rigidity by lessening clinging to static views, rooted in impermanence. 

Combining both the social relationship- and individual introspection-based routes towards wellbeing linked to attachment theory and Buddhism, respectively, could offer added benefits for secular individuals. A more profound and consistent compassionate stance towards both the self and others. Or enhanced mental clarity and flexibility, and thus more adaptive psychological functioning both as an individual and within social relationships. Future research will tell.  

Post on Instagram

The internet is full of posts mentioning the “anxious-avoidant trap”, apparently one of the most common and challenging attachment combinations within close relationships. But what’s science telling us? Let’s have a closer look!

Yes, there’s evidence that relationships with one or two insecurely attached partners are less stable and their satisfaction lower. And there’s more evidence that an anxious-avoidant combination can be problematic (although relatively stable), because the anxious partner’s desire for intimacy clashes with the avoidant partner’s desire for independence.

However, there’s more to this than meets the eye.

There’s almost no information on the prevalence of the different attachment combinations. Only one study reports a prevalence of 56.9% for the secure-secure combination. But what about the other combinations (i.e., anxious-avoidant)? We simply don’t know!

There’s a difference between whom we hypothetically prefer as a partner and with whom we end up in a relationship. Some studies found that we are attracted to secure individuals, regardless of our own attachment (i.e., attachment-security hypothesis). Others revealed that we are attracted to individuals with similar attachment, secure and insecure (i.e., similarity hypothesis). Yet, in actual relationships, results point to combinations of different and often opposing partner attachments – especially anxious-avoidant (i.e., complementarity hypothesis). But why is that so and what does it mean? More data is clearly needed.

The interactive effects of different attachment combinations on relationship outcomes are very complex. To calculate them, sophisticated statistical analyses in large samples are needed. Only very few studies were able to do so to date, and while one study found negative relationship outcomes for the anxious-avoidant combination (besides several other combinations…!), another study didn’t. More research into interactive effects is necessary to better understand all the details.

Finally, attachment can and does change, especially through professional support. We should therefore not think of any attachment combination as a “trap” with no escape.  

Post on Instagram

Pop-psychology typically portrays men as more avoidant and women as more anxious. But what does the latest science say? Let’s have a closer look!

The claim made by pop-psychology is only supported by data from questionnaires. Yet, the reported sex differences vary significantly – their strength depends on the participants and the sampling method. Sex differences are largest in random community samples, moderate for college students, and smallest in web-based studies. They also vary by geographic location, being largest in Europe and smallest in North America.

An even closer look reveals additional nuances. Men consistently score higher on self-reliance but sometimes also on rejected desire for closeness. In contrast, women consistently report higher levels of preoccupation and neediness but sometimes also greater discomfort with closeness. These findings show that attachment avoidance and anxiety are not simple, unified concepts. Instead, they consist of distinct components that can show up in different ways for men and women.

When examining interview results, there is another twist. Sex differences only emerge when secure, avoidant, anxious and unresolved attachment categories are included, with men more often classified as avoidant but women as unresolved (and not anxious). When examining sex differences, it therefore also depends which attachment measure is used. Interviews focus more on linguistic characteristics and discourse coherence but questionnaires on self-reported, conscious attitudes regarding attachment experiences.

Finally, sex differences vary significantly across the lifespan. They are absent during infancy and early childhood. They emerge in middle childhood with boys scoring higher on avoidance (and disorganization) and girls higher on anxiety. And then, they transition to the adult pattern described above. Moreover, based on questionnaire data, sex differences in anxiety (women > men) peak in young adulthood (ages 20-30) whereas sex differences in avoidance (men > women) increase linearly with age.

In short, while there are sex differences in attachment, they are more complex than pop-psychology suggests.

Post on Instagram.

There is no doubt that human-animal bonds offer many benefits for human wellbeing and health. There is extended evidence for reduced psychological and physiological stress in pet owners–like the alleviation of loneliness, anxiety and depression, and improved physical health like lower blood pressure. 

Unsurprisingly, the human-animal bond is readily compared to an attachment bond. Pets are said to serve as attachment figures for their owners, especially children. This is linked to the observation that pets (and particularly dogs) offer a consistent sense of security and can help ease the uncertainty of more complex human relationships. 

Furthermore, preliminary evidence shows that adults with insecure attachment, and boys with disorganised attachment, more readily form strong emotional bonds to pets, and that they profit more from the presence of a therapy dog. Possible neurobiological mechanisms are related to physical contact and stroking the dog, which has a stress-relieving and relaxing effect, as well as human-dog interpersonal neural synchrony.

That said, there are some important issues to consider.

First, “human-pet attachment” is usually measured in terms of strength or intensity, not quality. It thus remains unclear whether the human-pet bond has secure or insecure properties in accordance with attachment theory. The term “attachment” within this context should therefore be used with caution.

Second, some studies reveal a seemingly paradoxical link between a stronger human-pet bond and poorer mental health in people with insecure attachment. However, this finding is explained by the fact that insecure people–who independently report worse mental health–tend to form stronger emotional bonds with their pets as a compensation strategy for lower-quality human bonds.   

And finally, a lot remains unknown about how pets experience the human-animal bond and whether there may also be reciprocal “pet-human attachment”. A recent study performing a “Strange Situation Paradigm” with cats and their owners found some first behavioural and physiological patterns for avoidant and anxious cats. 

More studies are needed in this very promising area of research.

Post on Instagram.

To “rewire one’s brain” is the popular expression for neuroplasticity – the brain’s ongoing ability to alter its function and structure through new experiences and learning. It occurs primarily at the level of synapses, the tiny junctions that pass signals between neurons.

Functional neuroplasticity is the change in existing neural connection strength. This is relatively fast, the primary mechanism for short-term learning and memory, and either happens when ”neurons that fire together, wire together” or through the “use it or lose it” principle.

Structural neuroplasticity is the physical change of brain structure. This is a slower process to consolidate new skills and long-term memories, and includes the formation of new synapses (synaptogenesis) or the elimination of old ones (synaptic pruning). 

What neuroplasticity doesn’t generally involve, however, is the generation of new brain cells. This is a common misconception. While neurogenesis does occur in the adult brain, it’s restricted to very few areas.

Well then, is neuroplasticity also at play for attachment? And if so, how is it involved in “becoming more secure”?

As for any other processes linking new experiences and learning to changes in brain function and structure, neuroplasticity also happens in the context of attachment. When we “become more secure”, the strength of existing neural connections is altered, new synapses are generated and old ones eliminated in our brain.  

However, this isn’t a “quick fix”. It usually happens gradually and requires a consistently safe and secure relational environment (e.g., with a therapist). In addition, because attachment is literally everywhere in our brain, the associated “rewiring” involves much more than just negative emotional processes related to threat and fear, and therefore isn’t restricted to specific areas in the “right brain” or “lizard and mammalian brain”. 

Moreover, the “rewiring” isn’t driven by changes in specific “brain or nervous system states”. It occurs through changes in our brain’s prediction and interpretation of external and bodily signals. The key is to enable our brain to build a (new) predictive model of safety.  

Post on Instagram