Influence in interpersonal behavior

Attachment theory, initially proposed by Bowlby (1969), posits that early experiences with primary caregivers shape internal working models of relationships. These models influence how individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to intimacy and emotional needs. Two commonly discussed insecure attachment styles in adulthood are anxious-preoccupied and dismissive-avoidant, terms further elaborated in the work of Bartholomew & Horowitz (1991). These styles often contribute to relational discord and maladaptive interaction patterns.

Characterized by hyperactivation of the attachment system

Individuals with an anxious attachment style often display heightened sensitivity to relational cues and a chronic fear of abandonment (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). This hyperactivation manifests as excessive reassurance seeking, emotional reactivity, and rumination over perceived slights. Anxiously attached individuals may become preoccupied with the availability and responsiveness of their partner, perceiving ambiguity as rejection, which perpetuates emotional distress and dependency.

Avoidant attachment is marked by deactivation and emotional suppression

Avoidant attachment, by contrast, involves the downregulation of attachment needs. Adults with this style often exhibit emotional distancing, a reluctance to depend on others, and discomfort with closeness (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). This deactivating strategy reflects early experiences in which caregivers were unresponsive or dismissive, leading the individual to minimize reliance on attachment figures and suppress expressions of vulnerability.

Anxious-avoidant dynamic forms a destabilizing feedback loop

Romantic pairings between anxiously and avoidantly attached individuals are prone to distress due to complementary yet conflicting attachment strategies (Pietromonaco & Barrett, 2000). The anxious partner’s pursuit of closeness activates the avoidant partner’s need for distance, creating a feedback loop of protest behavior and withdrawal. This dynamic, often termed the “anxious-avoidant trap,” reinforces mutual insecurity and can erode trust and relational stability over time.

Attachment insecurity distorts perception and fuels maladaptive responses

Each partner’s internal working model filters and misinterprets the other’s behavior through the lens of attachment anxiety or avoidance. For the anxious partner, a lack of immediate responsiveness is internalized as rejection; for the avoidant partner, emotional expression may be perceived as coercive or overwhelming (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988). These perceptual biases maintain and exacerbate maladaptive interaction patterns.

Regulation and awareness are critical for disrupting dysfunctional cycles

Attachment security is not fixed; it can be enhanced through self-awareness, emotional regulation, and corrective relational experiences (Gillath et al., 2006). Anxiously attached individuals benefit from cognitive restructuring, mindfulness practices, and the development of autonomy. Avoidantly attached individuals are encouraged to increase emotional tolerance and practice vulnerability. Psychoeducation and individual therapy can support both in recognizing and modifying maladaptive strategies.

Secure attachment can be cultivated through effort and therapeutic support

Empirical evidence suggests that movement toward attachment security is possible when individuals engage in emotionally corrective relationships or therapeutic interventions (Johnson, 2004). Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT), for instance, targets attachment needs directly and has shown efficacy in restructuring negative interaction cycles in romantic relationships. Dyadic growth depends on both partners cultivating emotional responsiveness and mutual attunement.

• Intractable patterns may require relational dissolution for individual well-being
• In some instances, the anxious-avoidant dynamic becomes chronically dysregulated and resistant to change. Persistently insecure interactions may result in emotional exhaustion, decreased self-esteem, and psychological distress (Simpson & Rholes, 1998). When repair is not feasible, terminating the relationship may be a necessary step toward healing and reestablishing psychological safety.

References

• Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244.
• Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
• Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and its relation to other defensive processes. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical Implications of Attachment (pp. 300–323). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4(2), 132–154.
• Gillath, O., Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2006). An attachment-theoretical approach to compassion and altruism. In P. Gilbert (Ed.), Compassion: Conceptualisations, Research and Use in Psychotherapy (pp. 121–147). Routledge.
• Johnson, S. M. (2004). The Practice of Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy: Creating Connection. New York: Brunner-Routledge.
• Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press.
• Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (2000). The internal working models concept: What do we really know about the self in relation to others? Review of General Psychology, 4(2), 155–175.
• Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (1998). Attachment theory and close relationships. New York: Guilford Press.