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.

What IS 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

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

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

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.

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.