Attachment can change: overcoming relational insecurity

I'm Dr. Orion Teraband, and this is Psych Hacks, Better Living Through Psychology, and the topic of today's short talk is attachment can change. So today I'm going to be talking about something that I don't often discuss on this channel, namely attachment styles. I'm going to offer my perspective on the validity of this framework and how, in my opinion, it can be misapplied in the popular imagination. Let's get to it. First, an overview of attachment styles to bring people up to speed. The concept of attachment style originated in research conducted by psychologist Mary Ainsworth in the 1970s. Her most notable experiment was the strange situation in which she observed how infant children reacted when their mothers left the room after attending to them for a while and how the children reacted when the mothers returned a few minutes later. What Ainsworth discovered was that the children in her study could be reliably sorted into three different categories, which she called secure, insecure ambivalent resistant, and insecure avoidant. These are a little different than the names you've probably heard, but that is the language that Ainsworth used. The fourth category that you may be familiar with, disorganized, was actually articulated much later by other researchers as a kind of catch-all category for children who couldn't be reliably sorted into one of Ainsworth's three buckets. In any case, in Ainsworth's study, children were sorted depending on their observed reactions to the strange situation. The majority of children, 70%, were securely attached. They were somewhat distressed when their mothers left and happy and relieved when their mothers returned. The other 30% were split equally between the two remaining categories. Insecure ambivalent resistant children were intensely distressed when their mothers left, but were kind of pouty and difficult when their mothers returned. Finally, insecure avoidant children weren't really distressed when their mothers left and weren't all that interested when they came back. So that's the origin of attachment styles. Now, there has been a lot of research on attachment in the 50 years since Ainsworth's strange situation, and the evidence based for this framework is pretty robust. Like, attachment styles are real. However, since this framework entered the general consciousness through popular psychology about a decade ago, its validity has been weakened through misapplication and overgeneralization. And in my opinion, this occurs when folks consider attachment style to be a kind of destiny. Rigid, inflexible, unchanging. That if you're insecurely attached, you'll always be insecurely attached and there's really nothing you can do about it. And I don't believe that that's true. And I don't believe that that's true because I know for a fact that my own attachment style has changed over the years. Let's examine this further. When it comes to attachment, it's important to keep in mind that this is a field of research that is fundamentally based on observing infant behavior. Now, things can definitely happen to people when they're babies that will continue to impact them for the rest of their lives. I don't want to minimize or discount that. But by the same token, it's also true that most people change in many significant ways as they mature. Like, most people are not the same at one year old than they are at 40 years old. So it's important to remember that how an infant related to a caregiver does not dictate how that same person will relate to an intimate partner as an adult. It's more likely to be similar the less people make an effort to change their style of relating. And of course, they're less likely to make an effort if they believe that style to be inflexible and determined. But this style can and does change with intentional effort over time and over the course of normal developmental maturity. That said, we may need to attenuate our expectations. In my opinion, it's useful to consider attachment as a spectrum. Insecure avoidant on one end, insecure ambivalent on the other, and secure in the middle. It's absolutely possible for folks on the extremes to move toward the center. They can become more securely attached, but they probably won't ever be completely secure, and they certainly won't like switch polarities. However, this may very well still be worth doing. Why? Because secure attachment is just associated with the best relationship outcomes. They generally have cozy, uncomplicated, and enduring relationships, and securely attached people get along best with other securely attached people. It's hard for securely attached people to tolerate relationships with insecurely attached people, and vice versa. So insecurely attached people tend to end up with each other, which is generally not a recipe for long-term success. If you appreciate the insights on this channel, I would highly encourage you to get your hands on a copy of my book, The Value of Others. Over the course of 432 pages, I delve deep into my economic model of relationships and explain the behavior of both men and women in the game of mating and dating. I also provide a lot of actionable advice on how to get and keep more of what you want in the sexual marketplace. Once you read The Value of Others, you'll never look at relationships the same way again. Now available in ebook, audiobook, and paperback formats. The links are in the description. Insecurely attached people on opposite ends of the spectrum are initially drawn to each other out of a kind of recognition that each has what the other lacks. Like, an avoidant might find the attention and emotionality of an ambivalent highly attractive at the beginning. These folks can be vibrant and solicitous and loving, and they may help avoidance come into greater contact with their own emotions. However, over time, those same traits can feel suffocating, possessive, and overwhelming. By the same token, an ambivalent could find the confident self-possession of an avoidant irresistible in the initial courtship. These folks seem so confident and composed and independent. However, over time, these attributes begin to feel selfish, cold, and disinterested. Both tend to panic when the relational space between them isn't to their liking. This tends to create a pursuer-distancer relationship, in which ambivalents attempt to reduce the relational space to get their needs met, and avoidants attempt to increase the relational space to do the same. This often results in firecracker relationships, passionate, intense beginnings that lead to sudden explosive ends. The initial attraction of each eventually becomes the source of their mutual repulsion. In my experience, opposites do attract. They just don't tend to stay together. So in order to have stable, satisfying, long-term relationships, folks may have to move closer to the middle of the attachment spectrum to get them. So how does that happen? I can speak from my own experience. As a young man, I was very avoidant. Nowadays, I would say I'm on the avoidant side of secure. I've been able to shift my attachment style closer to the middle of the continuum. Therapy has helped me with this, as did learning more about myself and others. But honestly, nothing facilitated this transition more than intentionally putting myself in uncomfortable situations and increasing my capacity to tolerate the emotions that came up inside of me. I don't think I'll ever be like fully secure, but that's okay. By moving in the right direction, by tolerating my own discomfort and learning more effective interpersonal skills, I have been able to have much more satisfying relationships as an adult. So even if attachment style can't be changed completely, it still might be worth changing what can be changed. In many respects, I think attachment style is kind of like the personality dimension of extroversion and introversion. Both traits are unconsciously formed very early in life, most likely due to some kind of interaction between biological temperament and environmental experience, and both are unlikely to radically change. Like extreme introverts rarely become raging extroverts and vice versa. However, it may be possible and very helpful for those on the extreme ends of the spectrum to learn skills to help them navigate social situations more effectively. For instance, I was fairly introverted as a boy, but as a teen I was kind of forced into performance art. This was absolutely terrifying for me, but it turned out to be an extremely positive and growthful experience. I learned how to be comfortable and confident in front of others. I learned how to communicate more effectively. I learned how to manage my own anxiety. I learned many useful things as an actor, and I actually became fairly skilled. I was an introvert who could behave like an extrovert as needed, and this significantly opened up the world for me. However, the issue was that it was like always internally difficult to do those things. They didn't come naturally, even after all that practice. I could make the water flow uphill, which was absolutely useful at times, but it always required an effort. Ultimately, I decided that a very extroverted career like acting probably wasn't the best fit for me, and moved onto my current path where I've had much more satisfaction and success. In any case, my experiences as an actor helped me become more flexible, more outgoing, and more confident, all of which have helped me immeasurably as a person. I think the same thing applies to attachment. Like, avoidance can get better with closeness. They can learn skills to do certain things and not do certain other things, and they can get better at having enduring, satisfying relationships. But this will probably never feel entirely natural, and it will probably always entail some measure of effort. By the same token, ambivalence can get better with distance. They can learn skills to do certain things and not do certain other things, and they can get better at having enduring, satisfying relationships. But this, too, will probably never feel entirely natural, and it will probably always entail some measure of effort. However, it's still probably worth doing. And the further folks are on the extremes, the more likely it's still probably worth doing. Like, a very introverted person could benefit a lot from, say, performing in front of others, and a very extroverted person could benefit a lot from, say, learning to sit with themselves. These aspects of ourselves are not etched in stone. They can and do change, but they may require our intentional effort to do so. What do you think? Does this fit with your own experience? Let me know in the comments below. And please send this episode to someone who you think might benefit from its message. As it's word-of-mouth referrals like this that really help to make the channel grow. Anyone looking to join my free weekly newsletter or book a paid consultation can do so on my website. There's also my book on relationships, The Value of Others, and my member community, The Captain's Quarters. The links to everything are in the description below. Please check them out. There's a lot of very good resource and value there that I don't often present on this channel. If you like what you're hearing here, check out my other stuff. As always, I appreciate your support. Thank you for listening.