Attachment Styles in Relationships: Dating, Intimacy, Conflict, and Communication
Updated: 1 day ago
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 22, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Attachment styles in relationships are best understood as patterns in how people approach closeness, reassurance, dependence, autonomy, support, and threat inside important bonds. In contemporary adult attachment research, the strongest general model is dimensional: people vary in attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance rather than belonging permanently to one of four fixed personality types. The familiar labels secure, anxious or preoccupied, dismissive-avoidant, and fearful-avoidant are useful summaries of regions in that two-dimensional space, not diagnoses and not destinies.
That distinction matters in real relationships. Attachment anxiety can make uncertainty, distance, or ambiguous signals feel unusually urgent. Attachment avoidance can make dependence, vulnerability, or intense bids for closeness feel uncomfortable. Low anxiety and low avoidance are generally associated with greater security, but a person's responses can also vary by partner, relationship, and context. Measures such as the Experiences in Close Relationships–Relationship Structures questionnaire were designed precisely because attachment orientations can differ across relationships. Fraley et al. (2011) found that relationship-specific attachment measures predicted many relational outcomes better than broad attachment measures. For the dedicated anxious/preoccupied pattern, see Anxious Attachment Style: Signs, Triggers, Relationships, and What Research Shows. For the avoidant/dismissive-avoidant pattern specifically, see Avoidant Attachment Style: Signs, Triggers, Relationships, and the Dismissive-Avoidant Pattern.
Research consistently links both attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance with relationship functioning. A meta-analysis covering 73 studies, 118 independent samples, and 21,602 participants found that both dimensions were associated with poorer cognitive, emotional, and behavioral indicators of romantic relationship quality. Avoidance showed a stronger negative association with general satisfaction, connectedness, and support, while anxiety showed a stronger positive association with general conflict. Li and Chan (2012) These are average associations across groups, not rules for judging an individual couple.
What attachment style means in an adult romantic relationship
Adult romantic attachment concerns expectations and regulation around closeness and security in romantic bonds. In self-report research, attachment anxiety broadly reflects concern about rejection, abandonment, or a partner's availability. Attachment avoidance broadly reflects discomfort with closeness, dependence, or relying on a partner. Many widely used adult attachment instruments organize individual differences around these dimensions, although adult attachment research also uses interviews and other measurement traditions that are not interchangeable. A major review of 29 adult attachment instruments emphasizes that researchers must distinguish the relationship being assessed, the construct being measured, and whether a measure uses dimensions or categories. Ravitz et al. (2010)
The four familiar adult self-report patterns can be summarized without turning them into rigid boxes. Secure attachment usually refers to relatively low anxiety and low avoidance. Anxious or preoccupied attachment usually refers to higher anxiety with lower avoidance. Dismissive-avoidant attachment usually refers to higher avoidance with lower anxiety. Fearful-avoidant attachment commonly refers to higher anxiety together with higher avoidance. The four-category tradition has an important history in adult attachment research, including the model tested by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991), but modern self-report work often benefits from keeping the underlying dimensions visible.
These adult romantic patterns should not be collapsed into infant attachment classifications from the Strange Situation, classifications from the Adult Attachment Interview, or psychiatric diagnoses. They answer different questions and use different methods. In particular, fearful-avoidant self-report attachment should not automatically be treated as identical to infant disorganized attachment or an Adult Attachment Interview unresolved/disorganized classification.
Why attachment patterns become more visible under relationship stress
Attachment processes often become easiest to see when something important feels uncertain. A delayed reply, an argument, a request for more independence, a period of illness, a change in commitment, sexual rejection, travel, or the possibility of separation can increase the salience of questions such as: Is this person available to me? Can I rely on them? Am I safe getting closer? Will I be rejected if I need too much?
Reviews of adult attachment under stress describe different regulatory tendencies associated with anxiety and avoidance. Higher anxiety is commonly linked with hyperactivating responses: increased monitoring of threat, intensified bids for reassurance or proximity, and difficulty disengaging from attachment-related concerns. Higher avoidance is commonly linked with deactivating responses: suppression or distancing, stronger self-reliance, and efforts to reduce dependence or emotional exposure. Simpson and Rholes (2017) These patterns are most informative as probabilistic tendencies under relevant conditions, not as scripts that every person follows.
This also explains why people sometimes recognize themselves in more than one description. Someone may function with considerable security when a relationship is stable and responsive, yet become much more anxious during ambiguous loss. Another person may be comfortable with closeness until conflict becomes intense, then withdraw. A third may show different attachment orientations with a romantic partner, parent, or close friend. Relationship-specific measurement research supports the idea that attachment representations can be differentiated across relational contexts. Fraley et al. (2011)
Secure attachment in relationships
Secure functioning is not emotional invulnerability. A securely attached person can feel jealous, hurt, angry, lonely, or afraid of losing a partner. The difference is more often visible in how closeness and distress are regulated: seeking support without assuming that needing support is shameful, tolerating a partner's temporary autonomy without treating it as abandonment, receiving reassurance without requiring endless proof, and returning to communication after conflict rather than relying on chronic escalation or disengagement.
Security also involves a workable balance between safe-haven and secure-base functions. Partners may provide comfort during distress while also supporting exploration, competence, independence, friendships, work, and other goals. Research on effective support emphasizes that responsiveness and autonomy promotion can both matter: support tends to work better when the recipient experiences it as understanding, validating, caring, and appropriately fitted to the situation. Cutrona and Russell (2017)
A secure pattern therefore does not mean constant closeness, constant texting, conflict-free communication, or identical preferences for affection. It means that closeness and autonomy can usually be negotiated without repeatedly turning ordinary differences into evidence that the bond itself is unsafe.
Attachment anxiety in dating and relationships
Attachment anxiety becomes especially relevant when the relationship feels uncertain. Early dating contains many ambiguous signals: response times vary, exclusivity may be undefined, intentions may be unclear, and there may be limited evidence about how dependable the other person will be. For someone high in attachment anxiety, that ambiguity can amplify vigilance to signs of rejection and increase the urge to restore certainty quickly.
In an established relationship, the same dimension can appear as heightened sensitivity to changes in responsiveness, stronger reassurance seeking, persistent worry about the partner's feelings, or difficulty settling after a rupture. Under conflict, anxiety may contribute to demanding or pursuing communication when the person's underlying goal is contact, clarity, or reassurance. Meta-analytic evidence links attachment anxiety especially strongly with general conflict compared with avoidance. Li and Chan (2012)
The attachment framework is most useful when it translates the behavior into a relational process rather than a character judgment. Repeated messages after an argument may function as an attempt to reestablish connection. Asking the same reassurance question may temporarily reduce uncertainty. Pressing for an immediate conversation may reflect a low tolerance for unresolved threat. Understanding the function does not make every behavior constructive; it clarifies what keeps the cycle going.
Attachment anxiety is also not synonymous with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Reassurance seeking can occur in many psychological processes. When relationship doubts involve intrusive obsessions, compulsive checking, repeated mental review, comparison, or reassurance rituals, the differential question is different. Our guide to Relationship OCD explains that clinical pathway in its own right.
Attachment avoidance in dating and relationships
Attachment avoidance is often misunderstood as simply not caring. Research describes a more specific pattern: discomfort with dependence and vulnerability, preference for self-reliance, and strategies that reduce attachment-system activation or emotional exposure. During dating, this may look like slowing closeness when expectations intensify, protecting autonomy, minimizing relational needs, or feeling pressure when a new partner seeks rapid definition.
In established relationships, higher avoidance can be associated with lower connectedness and support, and with difficulties in both providing and receiving support. The meta-analysis by Li and Chan (2012) found stronger negative associations of avoidance with general satisfaction, connectedness, and support than were found for anxiety. A systematic review of 43 studies on romantic dyads similarly found that insecure attachment, including avoidance, was associated with poorer-quality support and more negative interpretations of received support. McLeod et al. (2020)
Withdrawal can serve several functions: reducing emotional arousal, regaining a sense of control, preventing dependence, or avoiding a conversation experienced as overwhelming. But repeated withdrawal can also leave the other partner without enough information to distinguish temporary self-regulation from disengagement. That ambiguity can become particularly destabilizing when the other partner is high in attachment anxiety.
It is also poor practice to diagnose a partner as “avoidant” from one behavior. A person may be quiet during conflict because of temperament, cultural communication norms, fatigue, depression, fear, neurodivergence, prior experiences, current relationship dynamics, or a deliberate wish to prevent escalation. The label “emotionally unavailable” has similar limits; our article on an emotionally unavailable spouse explains why the phrase can describe an experience without establishing a psychological type.
Fearful-avoidant attachment in relationships
A fearful-avoidant self-report pattern is commonly used for the combination of high attachment anxiety and high attachment avoidance. This can create a difficult approach-avoidance tension: closeness may be strongly desired while also feeling risky, dependence may be both sought and resisted, and relational threat may activate both urgent proximity seeking and withdrawal. For the dedicated style definition and terminology boundaries, see Fearful-Avoidant Attachment Style: Signs, Triggers, and the High-Anxiety High-Avoidance Pattern.
In practice, this means behavior can look inconsistent without being random. A person may move toward a partner for reassurance and then retreat when vulnerability feels too exposing. They may fear abandonment while also fearing the consequences of relying on someone. The exact expression depends on context, the partner, stress, learning history, and other psychological factors.
The term needs a precision rule. Fearful-avoidant attachment in adult self-report research is not automatically the same construct as infant disorganized attachment, adult disorganization measures, or unresolved/disorganized classifications in the Adult Attachment Interview. Those distinctions belong to different measurement traditions and should be preserved rather than compressed into a single internet label.
Dating: what attachment can and cannot tell you
Attachment can help explain why early dating sometimes feels disproportionately intense. Dating combines reward, uncertainty, social evaluation, sexual interest, hope, and the possibility of rejection. When attachment anxiety is high, unclear signals may become difficult to leave unresolved. When avoidance is high, rapid increases in expectations or dependence may feel intrusive even when attraction is present.
What attachment does not provide is a reliable formula for who you should date. The popular idea that a particular “type” is inevitably attracted to another type, or that intense chemistry proves an anxious-avoidant bond, goes beyond what the evidence can establish for an individual. Relationship quality depends on many interacting variables, including responsiveness, stress, communication, commitment, values, mental health, life circumstances, and the behavior of both partners.
Relationship duration also matters. A meta-analysis found that negative associations between both insecure attachment dimensions and relationship satisfaction or commitment tended to be stronger in longer relationships in cross-sectional samples. Hadden et al. (2014) That result does not mean insecurity mechanically worsens every relationship over time. It suggests that repeated regulation patterns and accumulated interactions can matter more than a single early-dating snapshot.
A useful dating question is therefore less “What type is this person?” and more “What happens between us when closeness, uncertainty, support, or conflict becomes important?” That question keeps attention on observable relationship processes.
Attachment, intimacy, and emotional closeness
Intimacy is not produced by disclosure alone. Classic process research found that self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness all contribute to experienced intimacy, with responsiveness playing a central role in whether a disclosure feels understood and cared for. Laurenceau et al. (1998) This is one reason attachment patterns matter so much in close relationships: they influence both the willingness to become vulnerable and the interpretation of a partner's response.
Higher anxiety may increase the desire for closeness while making ambiguous responses feel threatening. Higher avoidance may reduce willingness to disclose needs or may make certain forms of emotional dependence uncomfortable. Neither pattern means that a person lacks the capacity for intimacy. The issue is how intimacy is approached, regulated, and interpreted, especially when the interaction carries risk.
Perceived responsiveness is one of the strongest relational concepts to place beside attachment. Feeling understood, valued, and cared for helps explain why the same supportive act can land differently across people and situations. See our evidence guide to perceived partner responsiveness and, for a broader applied discussion of closeness, emotional intimacy in marriage.
Support seeking, caregiving, and everyday dependence
Romantic partners often become important sources of practical and emotional support. Attachment theory is especially relevant here because relationships involve two linked roles: seeking care when distressed and providing care when a partner needs it.
The systematic review by McLeod et al. (2020) found that insecure attachment was associated with less adaptive support processes in romantic dyads. Individuals higher in anxiety or avoidance were more likely to provide poorer-quality support and to interpret support they received more negatively. This is important because a relationship can contain objectively helpful behavior that still fails to feel helpful to the recipient.
Responsiveness can improve that fit. Support is more likely to strengthen a relationship when it addresses the person's actual need rather than the giver's preferred method. Sometimes that means warmth and reassurance. Sometimes it means practical help. Sometimes it means backing a partner's autonomy rather than taking over. Cutrona and Russell (2017) describe both nurturance and autonomy promotion as important support functions.
For couples, the practical implication is to make the support question explicit: “Do you want comfort, help solving this, space to think, or company while you handle it?” That is not an attachment treatment. It is a communication practice consistent with evidence that support works better when it is responsive to the recipient.
Conflict and communication: where attachment becomes a dyadic cycle
Conflict is a particularly attachment-relevant context because persistent or severe conflict can activate concerns about availability, rejection, dependence, and safety. A review of couple conflict from an attachment perspective emphasizes that responses to conflict reflect complex dynamics shaped by both partners' attachment anxiety and avoidance. Feeney and Karantzas (2017)
The most important word here is dyadic. Relationship conflict is not simply one person's attachment style acting on a passive partner. One person's response changes the conditions for the other's next response. A bid for reassurance can become more urgent after withdrawal; withdrawal can intensify when a conversation feels increasingly demanding. Over time, the couple can organize around a repeating interaction cycle.
Recent longitudinal evidence strengthens this process view. In a one-year study of 263 couples, attachment insecurities were indirectly associated with lower relationship satisfaction through greater use of demand/withdraw and demand/demand communication. Attachment avoidance was also indirectly associated with lower satisfaction through withdraw/withdraw communication. Stressful life events moderated some of the associations. Lefebvre et al. (2026) The findings support communication as one pathway connecting attachment insecurity with relationship outcomes; they do not establish that every insecurely attached person communicates in those ways.
The demand-withdraw pattern in relationships deserves its own analysis because it is a couple process, not a synonym for “anxious person plus avoidant person.” Demand and withdrawal can be shaped by topic, power, goals, stress, gendered roles, situational constraints, and each partner's behavior. Attachment can contribute to the cycle without fully explaining it.
Affection, sexuality, and attachment
Attachment research also intersects with affection and sexuality because sexual relationships can involve vulnerability, reassurance, closeness, autonomy, rejection, and caregiving. A systematic review of research through 2011 found that higher attachment anxiety and avoidance were associated with less satisfying sexual relationships, higher levels of sexual dysfunction, and differences in sexual frequency and motivations. The authors also emphasized major gaps in sampling and measurement. Stefanou and McCabe (2012)
These associations should not be converted into sexual stereotypes. Attachment anxiety does not tell you how often a person wants sex, and avoidance does not tell you whether a person enjoys affection. Desire and sexual functioning are influenced by relationship quality, health, medication, stress, trauma history, sexual orientation, hormonal and reproductive factors, body image, pain, cultural context, attraction, consent, and many other variables.
The useful attachment question is narrower: when affection or sex carries relational meaning, how does each partner interpret closeness, rejection, initiation, dependence, and reassurance? For one person, physical affection may communicate safety. For another, affection during unresolved conflict may feel intrusive. A psychologically informed conversation starts from the meaning of the interaction rather than assigning behavior to a type.
Breakups, separation, and attachment
Relationship dissolution is another context in which attachment strategies can become highly visible. In a large survey of more than 5,000 internet respondents, attachment anxiety was associated with greater preoccupation with the lost partner, stronger distress, attempts to reestablish the relationship, and several less adaptive coping responses. Avoidance was associated more with avoidant and self-reliant coping. Davis et al. (2003) The study was observational and based on self-report, so it describes associations rather than a deterministic breakup trajectory.
A later review of separation and divorce describes attachment reorganization as a process in which adults adapt to the loss of a relationship that had served attachment functions. Anxiety and avoidance may shape individual differences in this process through their characteristic emotion-regulation tendencies. Sbarra and Borelli (2019)
This helps explain why “just move on” is psychologically crude advice after an important bond ends. A breakup can involve the loss of a person, a regulation system, a source of reassurance, shared routines, identity structures, plans, and a familiar base for daily life. Attachment theory can illuminate that reorganization without turning grief into proof of a particular style.
Can partners with different attachment patterns have a good relationship?
Attachment labels do not determine compatibility. Two people with the same broad style can have very different relationships, while two people with different levels of anxiety and avoidance can build a stable partnership. The strongest evidence supports looking at relationship processes: responsiveness, communication, support, stress regulation, repair after conflict, commitment, and the way each partner responds to the other's vulnerabilities.
Partner behavior can also buffer insecurity. A major review describes how particular partner responses can reduce the harmful effects of attachment anxiety or avoidance in stressful couple contexts. Overall, Pietromonaco, and Simpson (2022) This is more informative than a compatibility chart because it asks what the relationship actually does with insecurity.
At the same time, “buffering” should not become an expectation that one partner must endlessly regulate the other. Healthy responsiveness includes boundaries, reciprocity, and room for both partners' needs. One person's attachment framework should never be used to make the other person responsible for tolerating coercion, control, intimidation, or abuse.
What helps attachment-related relationship difficulties?
The evidence does not support a universal technique for “healing an attachment style” on a fixed timeline. Adult attachment shows both continuity and contextual variability, and relationship processes can change. The practical target is often not a label but a repeatable interaction.
First, identify the activating situation as concretely as possible. “My attachment got triggered” becomes more useful when translated into “When you stop replying during an unresolved conflict, I start assuming the relationship is in danger,” or “When we keep talking while I am overwhelmed, I shut down and stop processing what you are saying.”
Second, identify the regulatory move that follows. Does one partner intensify contact, ask repeated reassurance questions, criticize, withdraw, delay, minimize, or become silent? The function matters: a behavior may be trying to restore closeness, prevent rejection, reduce arousal, preserve autonomy, or avoid escalation.
Third, make the underlying need negotiable. A request such as “Tell me you still want this relationship and then give me 30 minutes to settle” gives both connection and space a concrete form. Couples do not have to agree on identical emotional rhythms; they need enough predictability that one person's regulation does not repeatedly create the other's worst uncertainty.
Fourth, build responsiveness into ordinary interactions, not only crises. Feeling understood, valued, and cared for develops from repeated exchanges. Our guide to perceived partner responsiveness explains this process in detail.
Finally, when the cycle is entrenched, highly distressing, or connected with trauma, compulsions, depression, substance use, violence, or other clinical concerns, professional assessment can be more useful than self-labeling. A licensed clinician can evaluate the broader problem rather than assuming attachment is the sole explanation.
When attachment language becomes misleading
Attachment has become a popular language for relationships, and that popularity can create conceptual shortcuts.
“Secure,” “anxious,” “avoidant,” and “fearful-avoidant” are research-related attachment descriptions. They are not clinical diagnoses. An insecure attachment pattern is not an “attachment disorder.” Reactive Attachment Disorder and Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder are separate diagnostic constructs with specific developmental and clinical criteria, primarily concerning children; they should not be used as labels for ordinary adult relationship insecurity. (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2022)
“Attachment issues,” “attachment wounds,” and “attachment trauma” are also used in therapy culture and online discussion, but those phrases do not automatically identify a recognized diagnosis. They may refer to meaningful experiences, yet the underlying phenomenon still needs to be specified: relationship insecurity, trauma symptoms, grief, interpersonal mistrust, compulsive reassurance seeking, emotional dysregulation, or something else.
Attachment labels can also become tools for mind reading. Calling a partner avoidant does not prove why they need space. Calling a partner anxious does not show that their concern is irrational. The better sequence is behavior first, context second, interpretation third. Labels are useful when they summarize patterns that have already been observed; they are less useful when they replace observation.
Finally, attachment does not excuse harmful behavior. Jealous monitoring, coercive control, threats, stalking, intimidation, sexual pressure, and violence require direct attention to safety and conduct. A theory of why someone fears abandonment is not a justification for violating another person's boundaries. Gaslighting is a distinct reality-undermining pattern rather than an attachment style; see Gaslighting in Relationships: Signs, Examples, Effects, and How to Respond.
Frequently asked questions
How do attachment styles affect relationships?
Attachment dimensions can influence how people interpret closeness and distance, seek and receive support, respond to uncertainty, regulate emotion during conflict, and recover from separation. Meta-analytic and review evidence links higher attachment anxiety and avoidance with lower relationship quality on average, but the associations are probabilistic rather than deterministic. Li and Chan (2012)
Can attachment style be different in different relationships?
Yes. Research supports relationship-specific attachment representations. The ECR-RS was developed to assess anxiety and avoidance across different relational contexts, and relationship-specific scores can predict relational outcomes beyond broad trait-like measures. Fraley et al. (2011)
Does secure attachment mean never needing reassurance?
No. Security includes the ability to seek and receive support when needed. The key difference is not the absence of dependence; it is greater flexibility in using closeness and autonomy without chronic fear that either one will destroy the bond.
Can an anxious person and an avoidant person have a healthy relationship?
Yes, because attachment dimensions do not determine a couple's outcome. A pursue-withdraw cycle can be difficult when one partner intensifies contact and the other retreats, but actual relationship functioning depends on communication, responsiveness, stress, boundaries, repair, and both partners' behavior. The cycle itself is better analyzed as a dyadic process than as a compatibility verdict. For a pair-by-pair review of matching claims, see Attachment Style Compatibility.
Is fearful-avoidant attachment the same as disorganized attachment?
Not automatically. Fearful-avoidant is commonly used for a high-anxiety, high-avoidance adult self-report pattern. Infant disorganized attachment, unresolved/disorganized Adult Attachment Interview classifications, and adult disorganization measures belong to distinct assessment traditions. Treating them as synonyms can create false certainty.
Is attachment anxiety the same as relationship OCD?
No. Attachment anxiety is a relationship construct involving fears and regulation around rejection and availability. Relationship OCD refers to obsessive-compulsive symptoms focused on the relationship, including intrusive doubts and compulsive responses. The two can overlap in lived experience, but one does not establish the other. See Relationship OCD: Relationship Doubts, Checking, Reassurance, and Treatment.
Can attachment explain why someone is emotionally unavailable?
It can be one possible framework, especially when avoidance is high, but a single behavior or relationship problem cannot establish an attachment orientation. Emotional distance can have many causes. See Emotionally Unavailable Spouse: What It Can Mean and Why Labels Can Mislead.
Is adult attachment a diagnosis?
No. Adult romantic attachment is a research construct used to describe patterns and dimensions in close relationships. It should not be used as a substitute for psychiatric or psychological diagnosis.
Related Articles
For the narrower question of whether adult attachment dimensions are associated with limerence, see Limerence and Attachment Styles: Anxiety, Avoidance, and Relationship Uncertainty, which reviews the direct 2025–2026 data and avoids treating attachment as a deterministic explanation.
References
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (2022). Policy Statement on Coercive Interventions for Attachment Disorders. https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/AACAP/Policy_Statements/2022/Policy_Statement_Coercive_Interventions_Attachment_Disorders.aspx
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
Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (2017). Autonomy promotion, responsiveness, and emotion regulation promote effective social support in times of stress. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 126–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.07.002
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2003). Physical, emotional, and behavioral reactions to breaking up: The roles of gender, age, emotional involvement, and attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(7), 871–884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029007006
Feeney, J. A., & Karantzas, G. C. (2017). Couple conflict: Insights from an attachment perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 60–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.017
Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The Experiences in Close Relationships–Relationship Structures questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022898
Hadden, B. W., Smith, C. V., & Webster, G. D. (2014). Relationship duration moderates associations between attachment and relationship quality: Meta-analytic support for the Temporal Adult Romantic Attachment model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313501885
Laurenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238–1251. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238
Lefebvre, A.-A., Brassard, A., Jean, M., Daspe, M.-È., Lafontaine, M.-F., & Péloquin, K. (2026). The role of communication in romantic attachment and relationship satisfaction: A dyadic longitudinal study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 52(2), e70127. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.70127
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
McLeod, S., Berry, K., Hodgson, C., & Wearden, A. (2020). Attachment and social support in romantic dyads: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 76(1), 59–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22868
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
Sbarra, D. A., & Borelli, J. L. (2019). Attachment reorganization following divorce: Normative processes and individual differences. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.03.008
Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2017). Adult attachment, stress, and romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.006
Stefanou, C., & McCabe, M. P. (2012). Adult attachment and sexual functioning: A review of past research. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9(10), 2499–2507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02843.x