Attachment Style Isn't Destiny

When Professor Ximena Arriaga explained the attachment theory to her students, she immediately saw panic: those with an anxious style seemed to think "I'm doomed", those with an avoidant style stiffened in their chairs. The idea that our attachment style is a life sentence is one of the most widespread — and most mistaken — beliefs about the psychology of relationships. We all believe we have a kind of emotional zodiac sign: anxious, avoidant, secure, and there's no escaping that. But science today says the opposite: our way of attaching to others is not fixed, it is not written in our childhood, and above all it can change — even much more than we imagine. The misunderstanding stems from the beginnings of the theory, in the 1950s, with John Bowlby and the infamous experiments of Harry Harlow: monkeys separated from their mothers, cloth or metal surrogates, and puppies that prefer a soft embrace to real milk. Everything seemed to indicate that the relationship with the mother was the eternal matrix of every future bond. But Harlow's own research disproved this fatalism: the isolated monkeys, when later placed with other monkeys, almost completely recovered their social skills. Michael Lewis, who directs the Institute for the Study of Child Development at Rutgers, explains it this way: it is not just the parents who shape a child's relationships, but the entire network of adults and peers they encounter. And above all, attachment is not only played out in childhood: recent studies show very little correlation between the attachment style as a child and that as an adult. William Chopik, a psychologist at Michigan State, makes it even more concrete: “Maybe you're a little more avoidant than me, or more secure than a friend of yours. We're talking about decimal differences, not separate worlds." Some scholars today prefer to call it attachment orientation, not style, precisely to avoid the idea of a fixed label. Amir Levine, a psychiatrist at Columbia, suggests thinking of it as a “working model of the world” — a set of beliefs that are continually updated with each new relationship. And in fact, most of us become more secure as the years go by: we accumulate evidence that loved ones stay by our side, and we feel more at ease in our way of being with others. Chopik says: "After forty years of marriage, you hopefully stop worrying about whether your partner will still be there tomorrow." But it's not just about age or romance: your attachment can change from one relationship to another and even from one day to the next, especially in times of stress. Marisa Franco, a psychologist from Maryland, says that many people have a more secure attachment to their partner than to their friends, because friendships are more ambiguous and make us fall back into old patterns. And in practice, it also matters who you spend time with: if you are anxious, a reassuring person can help you; if you are avoidant, a safe space can work wonders. However, Arriaga warns: those who are anxious must not only seek reassurance from others, but also learn to feel valid on their own. In a study of new parents, she found that those who felt competent in their new role became more secure over time. And even the desire to change makes a difference: Chopik found that those who really want to move towards security make more progress than those who resign themselves. In the end, the real breakthrough is knowing that our attachment style is not reality but only a lens, and that it can change. When students ask Arriaga if there is hope, she answers without hesitation: "Of course there is." The way you bond with others is not destiny. On Lara Notes, you can mark with I'm In if this perspective has changed the way you think about your relationships — it's a statement, not a like. And if you happen to talk to someone about this discovery, you can tag them with Shared Offline: this way, there's a record of a conversation that really matters. This Note comes from The Atlantic and saves you 2 minutes.