Attachment in adulthood

Last time, we saw the role of parent-child attachment relationships. This time, we’re looking at adults. First, Dugan et al. (2024) published “Genetic and Environmental Contributions to Adult Attachment Styles: Evidence from the Minnesota Twin Registry” in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Here’s the edited abstract:

Attachment theory, as originally outlined by Bowlby, suggests that the ways people think, feel, and behave in close relationships are shaped by the dynamic interplay between their genes and their social environment. Research on adult attachment, however, has largely focused on the latter, providing only a partial picture of how attachment styles emerge and develop throughout life. The present research leveraged data from the Minnesota Twin Registry, a large sample of older adult twins (N = 1,377 twins; 678 pairs; Mage = 70.40 years, SD = 5.42), to examine the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors to adult attachment styles. Participants reported on both their general attachment styles and relationship-specific attachments to their mothers, fathers, partners, and best friends. The results suggest that attachment styles are partly heritable (∼36%) and partly attributable to environmental factors that are not shared between twins (∼64%). Heritability estimates were somewhat higher for parent-specific attachment styles (∼51%), whereas nonshared environmental factors accounted for larger proportions of the variance in partner- and best friend-specific attachment styles. Using multivariate biometric models, we also examined the genetic and environmental factors underlying the covariation among people’s relationship-specific attachment styles. The findings indicate that the similarities among people’s avoidant tendencies in different relationships can be explained by a single, higher order latent factor (e.g., global avoidance). In contrast, the genetic and environmental factors underlying attachment anxiety appear to be more differentiated across specific close relationships. 

I like this study because the twin sample is large and the examination of attachment in relation to parents, best friends, and partners interesting. It’s helpful to know the genetic contributions are present and higher in relation to parents. It’s not surprising that environmental factors play a larger role in attachment to friends and partners. I also find it intriguing that avoidance can be “global” while anxiety is more variable. Next, Sirparanta, Miljkovitch, Zdebik, Pascuzzo, Garon-Bissonnette & Moss (2024) published “Links between Early and Concurrent Attachment and Reflective Functioning in Young Adulthood” in Developmental Psychology. Here are the edited abstract and impact statements:

Links between reflective functioning (RF; the ability to conceive of mental states and to interpret human behavior accordingly) and concurrent attachment security have been found in both childhood and adulthood. However, the respective contributions of early and concurrent attachment security in adult RF remain unknown. This study examines the contributions of attachment security to the mother in early childhood and of concurrent attachment security to each parent in young adults’ RF. Eighty-one low-risk participants (49 girls and 32 boys) from average income families took part in this longitudinal study. Attachment security was assessed at 4 years of age with a composite measure of mother-reported Attachment Q-Sort and observer ratings of the quality of mother–child interactions. At age 23, the Attachment Multiple Model Interview was administered to assess participants’ attachment security to each parent. RF was coded from the participants’ attachment narratives using the Reflective Functioning Scale. Attachment security to the mother at age 4 was found to be associated with RF in adulthood. Also, an interactive effect between attachment to the mother and attachment to the father in adulthood was related to RF, suggesting that attachment with one parent moderates the effect of attachment with the other parent on RF. These findings emphasize the importance of both early and concurrent attachment security in the capacity to understand mental states in adulthood.

The present study suggests that early attachment security contributes to the ability to understand mental states in young adulthood. It also highlights the importance of considering combined effects of attachment to both parents in adulthood by suggesting that attachment security to one parent is positively related to this ability only when attachment security with the other parent is low.

As was the case in the Dagan et al. study of language competence, here we see evidence that attachment security relates to reflective functioning in adulthood. This longitudinal study also finds interaction effects of attachment to each parent. The next study returns to attachment avoidance. Hughes, Emery, McGorray, Gardner & Finkel (2024) published “The Delusion of the Disappearing Self? Attachment avoidance and the experience of externally invisible self-loss in romantic relationships” in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The edited abstract follows:

All of us experience self-change in relationships, but our subjective experiences of change may not always align with external metrics of such change. We hypothesized that people with higher attachment avoidance are more likely to experience self-change as a loss, which in turn predicts lower relationship commitment. We further hypothesized, however, that there would be a disparity in perceptions, such that external metrics—including their own behaviors and ratings from third-party coders—do not detect. Results from four studies, which employed a variety of cross-sectional (Studies 1 and 4) and longitudinal (Studies 2 and 3) methods, demonstrated that higher attachment avoidance predicted greater experienced loss of self, which in turn predicted lower commitment. Studies 2–4 also revealed evidence for the hypothesized disparity in perceptions: Avoidantly attached individuals’ experience of greater self-loss failed to emerge when using a variety of external metrics of self-loss, producing Avoidance × Loss Type (experienced vs. external metric) interaction effects. These studies suggest that avoidantly attached people, who tend to be vigilant to autonomy threats in relationships, experience relationship-linked changes as losses, even though external metrics fail to detect such loss. 

I found this study fascinating, in part, because the idea of self-loss in relationships is new to me but makes sense as a byproduct of avoidant attachment. Since avoidance creates a very self-protective stance, the fear of self-loss may well lead to lower commitment. It’s also fascinating that this relationship is not captured by external metrics. Next, we look at couple therapy. Orlowski, Friedlander, Johnson & Anderson (2024) published “Contribution of Attachment Insecurity to the Role and Outcome Expectations of Romantic Partners Entering Couple Therapy” in Psychotherapy. Again, the edited abstract and impact statement:

We investigated insecure attachment in relation to how actively romantic partners expect to participate in couple therapy (role expectations for self and partner) and, consequently, how much they expect to benefit from doing so (outcome expectations). Specifically, we used the mediated actor–partner interdependence model (Ledermann et al., 2011) with archived data from 297 heterosexual couples in a research-practice network who completed the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale–Short Form and the Expectations and Preferences Scales for Couple Therapy before their first session. Results showed acceptable model fit and a complex, dynamic interplay between gender, anxious, and avoidant attachment to partner, and pretherapy role and outcome expectations. Taken together, these results suggest that when romantic partners’ interactions or descriptions of one another’s behavior in the first session suggest a high level of attachment insecurity, particularly high avoidance, therapists should explain how their joint, active participation in the therapeutic process can help improve their relationship. 

Regardless of gender, higher avoidant attachment was associated with less favorable expectations for the partner’s participation in therapy as well as lower outcome expectations. Women with higher anxious attachment also had lower expectations for their partner’s engagement, which in turn was associated with less favorable outcome expectations. Men reporting more insecure attachment (anxious or avoidant) had lower expectations for their own engagement in therapy, in turn reducing their outcome expectations. The complex dynamics between attachment to partner and pretherapy role and outcome expectations differ somewhat for romantic partners in heterosexual couples and contribute to how they expect themselves and their partners to engage in the therapeutic process. Therapists should address partners’ expectations when the couple’s interactions in the first session suggest high attachment insecurity. Research with more diverse samples should investigate how attachment insecurity affects expectations after the initial phase of therapy. 

As in the previous study, avoidant attachment is associated with more difficulty, this time with trusting the partner to engage in therapy. Anxious attachment in women is associated with lower expectations of the partner and the benefits of therapy. It’s interesting that both anxious and avoidant attachment in men was associated with lower expectations of their own engagement. Taken together, these studies illustrate the role of attachment orientation in a variety of adult experiences.