Bowlby's attachment theory – short and to the point

Where the words “anxious” and “avoidant” came from and what's behind them. A short account of how attachment theory went from observing children to a modern test for adults.

John Bowlby: attachment as a safety system

In the 1950s and 60s, British psychiatrist and psychoanalyst John Bowlby worked with children separated from their parents. He noticed that their reactions – crying, searching, then despair and detachment – were too similar to one another to be a coincidence.

Bowlby proposed that a child has an innate attachment system. Its task is simple: to stay close to an adult who will protect them. When a child is scared, the system switches on: the little one reaches for their mother, calls out, holds on to a hand. When the adult is near and responsive, the system settles down, and the child can go back to exploring the world.

Bowlby set out his ideas in the trilogy Attachment and Loss, published between 1969 and 1980. A key idea from it: from repeated experience, a child builds internal working models – expectations about whether help will come and whether they deserve that help.

Mary Ainsworth and the “Strange Situation”

In the 1970s, American-Canadian researcher Mary Ainsworth, Bowlby's colleague, tested his ideas with an experiment. It became known as the “Strange Situation”: a mother and her roughly one-year-old come into an unfamiliar room with toys, the mother briefly leaves, a stranger comes in, and then the mother returns.

The most interesting part happened at the reunion. Some children got upset when their mother left and, when she came back, quickly calmed down and went back to playing – this pattern was called secure. Others seemed not to notice either the leaving or the returning, although physiological signs showed they were stressed too – the avoidant pattern. Still others cried hard and, even once picked up, couldn't calm down for a long time, clinging and angry at once – ambivalent.

Later, Mary Main and Judith Solomon described a fourth, disorganized pattern: the child behaves in contradictory ways, as if reaching for the adult and fearing them at the same time.

These observations still matter today. They showed that a child's behavior at reunion depends not on their “character”, but on how predictably the adult responded to their signals in everyday life.

Hazan and Shaver: from childhood to adult love

In 1987, Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver asked a bold question: what if adult romantic love is also a form of attachment? They published a short questionnaire about love experiences in a newspaper and received a great many responses.

It turned out that adults describe their relationships very much the way Ainsworth described children. Some find it easy to get close and trust. Some worry that their partner loves them less and want to merge with them completely. Some feel uneasy when another person gets too close.

This work launched research into adult attachment. A partner became that very “secure adult” we reach for when things are hard – for example, calling them after a tough day or looking for support before an important conversation.

Researchers also noticed a difference: childhood attachment usually runs in one direction, while adult attachment is mutual. Partners take turns supporting each other: today you're the support, tomorrow you're the one supported.

Bartholomew and Horowitz: four adult styles

In 1991, Kim Bartholomew and Leonard Horowitz proposed a four-style model. It rests on two questions: how a person sees themselves (whether they're worthy of love) and how they see others (whether they can be relied on).

That gave four combinations. Secure – a positive view of yourself and of others. Preoccupied, or anxious – others are good, but you easily see yourself as not enough. Dismissive-avoidant – you can rely on yourself, but better not count on others. Fearful-avoidant – you want closeness, but find it hard to trust both yourself and others.

This model showed something important: avoidance comes in different forms. One person calmly keeps their distance and says “I'm fine as I am”, another withdraws because they're very afraid of getting hurt.

Two scales instead of boxes

In 1998, Kelly Brennan, Catherine Clark and Phillip Shaver brought together a large number of questionnaires and concluded that behind all of them lie two core scales. The first is anxiety, meaning fear of rejection. The second is avoidance, meaning discomfort with closeness and dependence.

Since then, attachment has more often been described as a point on a plane with two axes rather than one of four boxes. A person high in anxiety rereads the chat and wonders why the reply is so short. A person high in avoidance feels cornered when a partner suggests moving in or spending every weekend together.

Our test is built on this two-dimensional model, but its questions are original. The four styles – secure, anxious, avoidant and fearful-avoidant – are zones on the plane, and the percentages show exactly where you are.

This approach is more convenient and more precise. Two people with the same style can be very different: in one, anxiety is barely above average; in the other, it shapes almost every conversation.

The method's honest limits

Any attachment questionnaire is a self-report. It shows how you yourself see your feelings and behavior, and that depends on your mood, on which relationship you're thinking of, and on how willing you are to be honest with yourself.

Your style isn't fixed forever. With one partner a person may feel calm, with another constantly anxious. After a painful breakup, anxiety often rises, and in a long, caring relationship it gradually eases.

The test result isn't a diagnosis or a medical opinion. It doesn't explain a person as a whole: character, values, life experience and the ability to reach agreements all remain outside it. If certain topics hurt especially, it's worth talking about them with a psychologist – the test result can be a good starting point for that conversation.

Take the free test – 10 minutes