Attachment Style Compatibility: Do Some Attachment Styles Work Better Together?
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 22, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Attachment style compatibility is not a scientifically established matching system in which one adult attachment label determines who you should date. Research does show that attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance are associated with relationship quality, that each partner can affect the other, and that some combinations can create predictable friction. But the evidence does not support a universal four-by-four compatibility chart with guaranteed “best” and “worst” couples.
The most useful answer is dimensional: people vary in attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance, and both partners bring those tendencies into a relationship. Across 73 studies with 118 independent samples and 21,602 participants, both anxiety and avoidance were associated with poorer romantic relationship quality, although their correlates differed. Avoidance was more strongly associated with lower satisfaction, connectedness, and support, while anxiety was more strongly associated with conflict. Li and Chan (2012).
A separate meta-analysis of 132 studies found negative associations between adult attachment insecurity and relationship satisfaction at both the actor level—your own insecurity in relation to your own satisfaction—and the partner level—your partner’s insecurity in relation to your satisfaction. Actor effects were generally stronger. Candel and Turliuc (2019).
So do some attachment styles work better together? If “better” means lower attachment-related risk on average, a relationship in which both partners are low in anxiety and avoidance has the most favorable starting configuration. That is the pattern commonly summarized as secure attachment. Yet even two secure partners can be incompatible for reasons attachment theory does not measure, while couples with insecure patterns can build satisfying relationships. Attachment describes one system within a relationship, not the whole relationship.
The Short Answer: Compatibility Is a Dyadic Process, Not a Match Score
Popular compatibility charts usually turn four familiar labels—secure, anxious/preoccupied, dismissive-avoidant, and fearful-avoidant—into ten possible pairings and rank them. That format is easy to read, but it is more precise than the research allows. Adult romantic attachment research is usually better represented by two continuous dimensions: attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. The four labels are useful summaries of regions in that two-dimensional space, not diagnoses or fixed personality species.
The four-category tradition has an important research history, including the model proposed by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991). For the broader model, measurement framework, and anxiety × avoidance structure, see Adult Attachment Theory. Later self-report work helped establish anxiety and avoidance as central dimensions in adult romantic attachment measurement. Fraley, Waller, and Brennan (2000). A broad review of adult attachment measures also shows that different instruments assess different constructs, relationship targets, dimensions, and categories. Ravitz et al. (2010).
That measurement point matters for compatibility. A person can be relatively secure in one close relationship and more anxious or avoidant in another. A categorical label can summarize a pattern, but it cannot tell you, by itself, how two particular people will communicate, respond to stress, negotiate autonomy, repair conflict, or treat one another. For the cluster-wide taxonomy and dimensional overview, see Attachment Styles in Adults.
What Does “Attachment Style Compatibility” Actually Mean?
In everyday search language, attachment compatibility usually means one of three things: whether two people are likely to feel comfortable together, whether their attachment strategies are likely to activate each other, and whether the relationship is likely to be satisfying or stable. Those are related questions, but they are not identical. For the broader application of attachment to dating, intimacy, conflict, and communication, see Attachment Styles in Relationships.
Comfort can be misleading. Two people who both prefer emotional distance may feel less immediate conflict because neither is asking for much closeness, yet that does not establish high intimacy or satisfaction. Intensity can also be misleading. A relationship can feel highly activating and still remain stable. Stability itself is not proof of compatibility, because couples can stay together while reporting low relationship quality.
A classic three-year longitudinal study of 354 heterosexual dating couples illustrates the difference between stability and quality: some avoidant-man/anxious-woman relationships were surprisingly stable despite relatively poor relationship ratings. Kirkpatrick and Davis (1994). In another four-year prospective study, secure respondents reported fewer breakups overall, but ambivalent respondents were as likely as secure respondents to remain with the same partner identified four years earlier. Kirkpatrick and Hazan (1994).
For a practical definition, attachment compatibility is better understood as the way two people’s attachment-related expectations and regulation strategies interact under closeness, uncertainty, conflict, separation, and support. That interaction can make certain cycles more likely. It still does not produce a destiny score.
What the Research Says About Matching Two Partners
Dyadic research gives us stronger evidence than one-person attachment descriptions because it studies both members of the couple. In 333 married couples, Banse found that marital satisfaction was associated not only with a person’s own attachment ratings but also with the partner’s attachment and with interactions between the two. Secure attachment was generally associated with higher satisfaction and insecure attachment with lower satisfaction, while specific dyadic configurations could amplify or attenuate those associations. Banse (2004).
More recent dimensional work reaches a similar conclusion without treating categories as rigid boxes. Across two dyadic studies, Rodriguez and colleagues found that a person’s attachment anxiety was more strongly associated with lower trust, satisfaction, and commitment when the partner was more avoidant, and the negative association was weaker when the partner was more anxious. Rodriguez, Coy, and Hadden (2021).
At the same time, broad relationship science warns against reducing relationship quality to attachment matching. Across 43 longitudinal dyadic datasets comprising 11,196 couples, relationship-specific variables such as perceived partner commitment, appreciation, sexual satisfaction, perceived partner satisfaction, and conflict were among the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality. Attachment anxiety and avoidance mattered as individual-difference predictors, but they were not the whole prediction problem. Joel et al. (2020).
Another pooled analysis of 10 longitudinal studies and 1,104 married couples found that both partners’ enduring qualities, their stress, and their observed behavior interacted in predicting changes in marital satisfaction. McNulty et al. (2021). This is exactly why a compatibility grid should be treated as a shorthand for possible dynamics rather than a relationship forecast.
Pair by Pair: What Can We Actually Say?
The sections below answer the pair-combination search intent directly. The evidence is strongest for general effects of anxiety and avoidance and for some dyadic interactions. It is much weaker for claims that every one of the ten categorical pairings has a known success rate. Where direct pair-specific evidence is limited, the conclusions below are dimensional interpretations rather than validated rankings.
Secure + Secure
This is the lowest-insecurity configuration in the usual four-style shorthand: both partners are relatively low in anxiety and avoidance. On average, that means fewer attachment-related reasons to interpret ordinary distance as abandonment, closeness as engulfment, or support as unsafe. Research consistently associates lower insecurity with better relationship quality, so secure-secure has a favorable statistical starting point.
That does not make secure-secure a guarantee. Attachment does not measure shared values, sexual compatibility, life goals, financial conflict, substance use, chronic stress, contempt, coercion, or whether two people actually like the lives they are building together. A couple can be low in attachment anxiety and avoidance and still be badly matched in other domains.
Secure + Anxious
This pairing can work well when the lower-anxiety partner responds to bids for closeness with clarity and consistency without turning the relationship into permanent reassurance management. Research on partner buffering shows that a partner’s responses can reduce some of the harmful effects of attachment insecurity in stressful couple contexts. Overall, Pietromonaco, and Simpson (2022).
Perceived responsiveness is especially relevant. In a study of 236 couples, people who perceived a partner as more responsive reported lower partner-specific attachment anxiety and avoidance, with particularly strong benefits among people who were generally insecure. Rice, Kumashiro, and Arriaga (2020). The implication is not that a secure partner “fixes” an anxious partner. It is that relationship-specific experiences can support greater security within that relationship.
The risk in popular advice is assigning all regulation to the more secure partner. A sustainable relationship still requires both people to communicate, tolerate reasonable separations, respect boundaries, and participate in repair. Security is a relational resource, not a job description.
Secure + Avoidant
A lower-avoidance partner may make closeness feel less threatening by being predictable, respecting autonomy, and not escalating every request for space into a test of love. Partner buffering research supports the broader idea that responses tailored to insecure attachment can mitigate harmful reactions. It does not establish that every secure-avoidant pair will become secure or that one partner should accept chronic emotional unavailability.
Avoidance has shown robust negative associations with satisfaction, connectedness, and support in meta-analytic research. Li and Chan (2012). So the important question is not whether the secure label neutralizes the avoidant label. It is whether the couple can preserve autonomy while still maintaining enough responsiveness, intimacy, and reliability for both partners.
If “avoidant” is being inferred only because someone seems distant, it is worth separating attachment avoidance from the much broader popular label emotionally unavailable spouse. A single behavior or a partner’s frustration is not enough to assign an attachment style.
Secure + Fearful-Avoidant
In self-report adult attachment language, fearful-avoidant usually refers to a pattern high in both anxiety and avoidance: a person may strongly want connection while also anticipating threat, rejection, or loss of autonomy around closeness. A lower-anxiety, lower-avoidance partner can provide a more predictable relational context, but direct research on “secure + fearful-avoidant” as a categorical match is limited.
Relationship-specific security can shift with experience, and changes can be coordinated within couples. A one-year study of 172 couples found that changes in partner-specific attachment security were coordinated across partners. Hudson et al. (2014). That supports a dynamic view of the relationship without promising that a secure partner will automatically transform a high-anxiety/high-avoidance pattern.
Fearful-avoidant self-report patterns should also not be automatically equated with infant disorganized attachment or with unresolved/disorganized classifications from the Adult Attachment Interview. Those constructs come from different measurement traditions. For compatibility questions, the relevant concept is the adult romantic self-report pattern unless a study explicitly uses another method.
Anxious + Anxious
Two highly anxious partners may understand each other’s desire for closeness and reassurance, but shared anxiety can also create mutual monitoring, rapid escalation around ambiguity, or repeated reassurance loops. Importantly, dyadic evidence does not justify calling this pairing either ideal or doomed. In the two studies by Rodriguez and colleagues, the association between a person’s anxiety and lower relationship evaluations was weaker when the partner was also more anxious. Rodriguez, Coy, and Hadden (2021).
That interaction is interesting because it contradicts a simple “two insecure people are always worse” rule. It still does not mean anxiety becomes beneficial when matched with anxiety. Both partners can remain vulnerable to uncertainty even if their regulation strategies are more similar.
Anxious + Avoidant
This is the pairing with the clearest theoretical reason for reciprocal activation. Higher anxiety tends to increase proximity-seeking and sensitivity to rejection; higher avoidance tends to increase distancing and discomfort with dependence or closeness. Dyadic evidence shows that the negative association between actor anxiety and relationship evaluations can be stronger when the partner is more avoidant. Rodriguez, Coy, and Hadden (2021).
In everyday relationship behavior, this can resemble a demand-withdraw pattern: one person intensifies attempts to discuss, reconnect, or obtain reassurance while the other disengages or asks for distance. Demand-withdraw is a broader interaction pattern and should not be treated as proof that one partner is anxious and the other avoidant, but the concepts can overlap in a given couple.
The classic longitudinal evidence also adds an important correction: anxious-avoidant combinations can be stable even when relationship ratings are poor. Kirkpatrick and Davis (1994). Therefore “they keep getting back together” or “they have lasted for years” does not establish good attachment compatibility.
This pairing is often described online as the “worst” match. The evidence supports concern about reciprocal activation, not a universal red-light rule. The dedicated Anxious-Avoidant Relationship article owns the deeper pursue-withdraw pairing intent because the cycle deserves more depth than a compatibility overview can provide.
Anxious + Fearful-Avoidant
This combination can produce intense uncertainty because the anxious partner may seek contact when the bond feels threatened, while the high-anxiety/high-avoidance partner may alternate between seeking and resisting closeness. However, there is not a large direct evidence base that validates a unique categorical prognosis for this exact pairing.
Dimensionally, one person’s anxiety is interacting with a partner who is high on both anxiety and avoidance. That can create moments of strong mutual reassurance-seeking followed by withdrawal or ambivalence about closeness. The relationship outcome will depend heavily on what the partners actually do with those states: whether needs can be named, whether distance is communicated, whether reconnection is reliable, and whether conflict is repaired.
Avoidant + Avoidant
Two highly avoidant partners may experience less immediate conflict about autonomy because both tolerate or prefer more distance. That can feel compatible. But low visible conflict is not the same as high emotional connection, responsiveness, or satisfaction. Meta-analytic evidence links avoidance to lower connectedness and support, so a pair can be quiet without necessarily being close.
The older longitudinal study by Kirkpatrick and Davis found no avoidant-avoidant pairs in its sample of 354 heterosexual dating couples, which is one reason it cannot be used to estimate how this pairing fares. Kirkpatrick and Davis (1994). Contemporary compatibility charts that assign this pairing a precise score usually go beyond what direct pair-specific research establishes.
Avoidant + Fearful-Avoidant
Both partners may sometimes use distance to regulate discomfort, but the fearful-avoidant pattern also includes high attachment anxiety. That means the same silence that feels regulating to a highly avoidant partner may later intensify uncertainty for the high-anxiety/high-avoidance partner. Direct categorical matching evidence is limited, so this is best treated as a plausible dimensional interaction rather than a validated compatibility ranking.
The practical distinction is whether space remains legible. A mutually agreed pause with a clear return is different from unexplained disappearance. When both partners can communicate what distance means and when they will reconnect, autonomy does not have to become ambiguity.
Fearful-Avoidant + Fearful-Avoidant
Two partners high in both anxiety and avoidance may both experience approach-avoidance tension around intimacy: closeness can be wanted and feared, and distance can provide relief while also increasing concern about the bond. That creates many possible patterns, not one inevitable cycle.
The pair-specific evidence here is sparse. It would be scientifically misleading to assign a universal success probability or call this the “most complex” pairing as though that were a validated category-level fact. The more defensible approach is to assess the actual levels of anxiety and avoidance, the relationship-specific pattern, and the observable processes between the partners.
Why a Secure Partner Is Not a Treatment
One of the most common claims in attachment compatibility content is that a secure partner can “heal” an insecure partner simply by being secure. Research supports a more specific idea: responsive, well-timed partner behavior can buffer insecurity, and repeated relationship experiences can be associated with greater relationship-specific security. It does not support treating a partner as a therapist or promising that one person’s attachment security will cure another person’s pattern.
The review by Overall, Pietromonaco, and Simpson (2022) emphasizes partner buffering processes, while Rice, Kumashiro, and Arriaga (2020) found that perceived responsiveness was linked to greater partner-specific security. Those findings are relational and probabilistic. They do not erase personal history, current stress, trauma exposure, personality, mental health, or relationship behavior.
A relationship can support security when both people participate in creating predictability, care, autonomy, and repair. It becomes risky when “be secure for me” turns into a demand that one partner indefinitely absorb volatility, tolerate mistreatment, or suppress their own needs.
What Predicts a Better Relationship More Reliably Than a Compatibility Chart?
Attachment matters, but relationship-specific processes matter greatly too. In the large multi-lab project by Joel et al. (2020), perceived partner commitment, appreciation, sexual satisfaction, perceived partner satisfaction, and conflict were among the strongest self-report predictors of relationship quality. This does not make attachment irrelevant; attachment avoidance and anxiety also appeared among the stronger individual-difference predictors. It shows that relationship quality is built from more than trait-like labels.
One especially relevant process is perceived partner responsiveness—the sense that a partner understands, values, and cares for you. It is associated with partner-specific attachment security and helps explain why the same person can feel more secure in one relationship than another.
Another is the couple’s ability to build and restore emotional intimacy. Compatibility is more useful when translated into observable questions: Can both people ask for closeness without coercion? Can either person request space without making the bond unintelligible? Can the couple return to unfinished conversations? Can they respond to vulnerability with care? Can conflict be repaired without one person having to chase the relationship back into existence?
Longitudinal evidence also supports a systems view. McNulty et al. (2021) found that the qualities of both partners, their stress, and their behavior jointly shaped changes in marital satisfaction. A matching chart that ignores stress, communication, and behavior is therefore leaving out major parts of the relationship.
Relationship-Specific Attachment Changes the Compatibility Question
People often ask, “What style am I?” as though one answer applies equally to every relationship. Adult attachment research allows a more contextual picture. A person can have a general tendency and also hold partner-specific expectations. That means compatibility is partly about what this particular relationship repeatedly teaches each partner to expect.
In the study by Rice, Kumashiro, and Arriaga (2020), perceived partner responsiveness was especially associated with lower partner-specific anxiety and avoidance among generally insecure individuals. In the longitudinal work by Hudson et al. (2014), changes in partner-specific security were coordinated within couples.
This does not mean attachment is infinitely flexible or that every relationship can become secure. It means a compatibility judgment based on a single global label can miss the very relationship-specific processes that matter most for the pair in question.
How to Read the Four Labels Without Turning Them Into Diagnoses
Secure, anxious/preoccupied, dismissive-avoidant, and fearful-avoidant are research-informed descriptive summaries. They are not clinical diagnoses. Adult romantic attachment measured by self-report is also not interchangeable with infant attachment classifications from the Strange Situation or with Adult Attachment Interview classifications.
Adult attachment measurement includes multiple instruments and methods with different targets and assumptions. Ravitz et al. (2010). That is why a quiz result, a partner’s behavior during one argument, or a social-media checklist should not be treated as a definitive clinical classification.
In particular, fearful-avoidant adult self-report language should not automatically be renamed “disorganized attachment.” The dedicated Disorganized Attachment in Adults article separates infant disorganization, Adult Attachment Interview unresolved/disorganized classifications, adult disorganization measures, and high-anxiety/high-avoidance self-report patterns. A compatibility page should not collapse them.
Likewise, insecure adult attachment styles are not “attachment disorders.” Reactive Attachment Disorder and Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder are separate clinical diagnoses associated primarily with childhood diagnostic frameworks. Calling an anxious or avoidant adult partner “attachment disordered” confuses different constructs.
A Better Way to Evaluate Your Own Pairing
If you know both partners’ approximate attachment tendencies, use them as hypotheses about stress regulation rather than verdicts about who belongs together. Instead of asking only “Are our styles compatible?” ask what happens when the attachment system is activated.
Notice the sequence around uncertainty. Who seeks contact? Who delays? What does each person believe the other person’s behavior means? Is reassurance specific and effective, or does it have to be repeated endlessly? Does a request for space include a clear return, or does it become indefinite silence? Does closeness feel chosen, or demanded? These questions translate a label into observable relationship processes.
Then examine repair. A difficult pairing can become more workable when both people can identify the cycle, own their part, communicate needs directly, and return after conflict. A supposedly easy pairing can still deteriorate if contempt, secrecy, chronic invalidation, coercion, or unresolved incompatibilities dominate the relationship.
Finally, separate compatibility from safety. If a relationship includes threats, coercive control, violence, stalking, or fear for personal safety, attachment language is not the right framework for deciding whether the behavior is acceptable. Safety takes priority over explaining the pattern.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which attachment styles are most compatible?
If compatibility means lower attachment-related risk on average, two partners who are both relatively low in attachment anxiety and avoidance have the most favorable starting configuration. That is commonly summarized as secure + secure. Research does not establish a universal winning match, and low attachment insecurity cannot compensate for serious problems in other parts of the relationship.
What is the worst attachment style pairing?
There is no scientifically validated universal “worst” pairing. Anxious + avoidant can create especially strong reciprocal activation because one partner’s attempts to restore closeness can meet the other partner’s distancing. Dyadic research supports this interaction as a risk pattern, but it does not justify a red-light rule for every anxious-avoidant couple.
Can an anxious person and an avoidant person have a healthy relationship?
Yes. Attachment style does not determine outcome. The pairing may require more deliberate work around reassurance, autonomy, pacing, conflict, and return after distance because the partners’ default regulation strategies can intensify each other. The quality of the actual relationship processes matters more than the label alone.
Can two avoidant people be compatible?
They can be. Shared preference for autonomy may reduce some overt conflict, but it can also make emotional distance easier to maintain. Evidence does not support a fixed prognosis for avoidant + avoidant couples. Evaluate intimacy, responsiveness, support, and satisfaction rather than assuming that low conflict equals compatibility.
Can two anxious people be compatible?
They can be. Similar desire for reassurance and closeness may create a sense of mutual understanding, while shared sensitivity to uncertainty can also amplify worry or monitoring. Dyadic findings suggest that partner anxiety can change how a person’s own anxiety relates to relationship evaluations, which is more nuanced than a simple good-match/bad-match rule.
Is a secure partner compatible with every attachment style?
A lower-anxiety, lower-avoidance partner can contribute stability and responsive support, and partner buffering research shows that certain responses can mitigate insecurity. That does not make a secure person universally compatible with everyone, nor does it obligate them to regulate a partner indefinitely. Values, behavior, attraction, boundaries, goals, and safety still matter.
Does fearful-avoidant mean disorganized attachment?
Not automatically. In adult romantic self-report language, fearful-avoidant commonly refers to high anxiety plus high avoidance. Infant disorganized attachment, Adult Attachment Interview unresolved/disorganized classifications, adult disorganization measures, and fearful-avoidant self-report patterns are methodologically distinct constructs and should not be treated as synonyms.
Can attachment style compatibility predict whether a couple will break up?
Not with the certainty implied by online compatibility scores. Attachment insecurity is associated with relationship quality and can relate to stability, but stability and satisfaction are different outcomes. Longitudinal studies show that some insecure combinations can remain stable despite lower relationship ratings. A pair of style labels is not a breakup calculator.
Should I leave a relationship because our attachment styles are incompatible?
An attachment pairing is not sufficient evidence for that decision. A more informative assessment is what repeatedly happens in the relationship: whether needs and boundaries can be communicated, whether both people participate in repair, whether responsiveness and trust can develop, whether core life goals fit, and whether the relationship is safe. Attachment language can clarify a pattern; it should not make the decision for you.
Bottom Line
Attachment style compatibility is real only in a limited, research-grounded sense: the attachment tendencies of both partners can interact, and some combinations create more attachment-related friction than others. The strongest evidence is dimensional. Higher anxiety and higher avoidance are associated with poorer relationship quality on average, each partner can influence the other, and anxious tendencies can be especially difficult when paired with greater partner avoidance.
What research does not give us is a scientifically validated matchmaking grid. Secure + secure is a favorable low-insecurity configuration, but no style pairing guarantees a good relationship. Anxious + avoidant can be highly activating, but it is not automatically doomed. Other pairings often have far less direct evidence than online charts imply.
The better question is not simply, “Do our styles match?” It is: “What happens between us when closeness, distance, uncertainty, support, and conflict activate our attachment systems—and can we respond to that pattern in ways that build security rather than intensify threat?”
Related Articles
References
Banse, R. (2004). Adult attachment and marital satisfaction: Evidence for dyadic configuration effects. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(2), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407504041388
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226
Candel, O.-S., & Turliuc, M. N. (2019). Insecure attachment and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis of actor and partner associations. Personality and Individual Differences, 147, 190–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.037
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350
Hudson, N. W., Fraley, R. C., Brumbaugh, C. C., & Vicary, A. M. (2014). Coregulation in romantic partners’ attachment styles: A longitudinal investigation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 845–857. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214528989
Joel, S., Eastwick, P. W., Allison, C. J., et al. (2020). Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(32), 19061–19071. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917036117
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Davis, K. E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 502–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.502
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment styles and close relationships: A four-year prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1(2), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00058.x
Li, T., & Chan, D. K.-S. (2012). How anxious and avoidant attachment affect romantic relationship quality differently: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(4), 406–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1842
McNulty, J. K., Meltzer, A. L., Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2021). How both partners’ individual differences, stress, and behavior predict change in relationship satisfaction: Extending the VSA model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(27), e2101402118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2101402118
Overall, N. C., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Simpson, J. A. (2022). Buffering and spillover of adult attachment insecurity in couple and family relationships. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00011-1
Ravitz, P., Maunder, R., Hunter, J., Sthankiya, B., & Lancee, W. (2010). Adult attachment measures: A 25-year review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 69(4), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.08.006
Rice, T. M., Kumashiro, M., & Arriaga, X. B. (2020). Mind the gap: Perceived partner responsiveness as a bridge between general and partner-specific attachment security. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 7178. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197178
Rodriguez, L. M., Coy, A., & Hadden, B. W. (2021). The attachment dynamic: Dyadic patterns of anxiety and avoidance in relationship functioning. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(3), 971–994. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520975858