Attachment Trauma: What the Term Means, What Research Supports, and What It Does Not Diagnose

6 days ago

18 min read

Updated: 5 days ago

Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 22, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Attachment trauma is a widely used clinical and popular term for harmful or overwhelming experiences that occur within an attachment relationship and for the lasting effects those experiences may have on safety, trust, emotion regulation, self-understanding, and close relationships. The term is increasingly discussed in peer-reviewed research, and researchers have begun developing dedicated measures for it. Yet attachment trauma is not a standalone diagnosis in DSM-5-TR or ICD-11, and there is no universally accepted symptom checklist that can tell a person that they “have attachment trauma.” For the broader colloquial umbrella phrase, see Attachment Issues in Adults.

The evidence is strongest when the phrase is translated into better-defined constructs. Childhood maltreatment and severe relational adversity are associated, on average, with greater adult attachment anxiety and avoidance; insecure attachment is associated with a range of mental-health outcomes; and attachment insecurity can shape post-trauma adjustment. These findings support a meaningful relationship between adverse attachment experiences and later functioning. They do not establish a single disorder called attachment trauma, a fixed “trauma attachment style,” or a one-to-one pathway from a childhood event to a particular adult relationship pattern.

A 2026 three-level meta-analysis synthesized 1,304 effect sizes from 228 independent samples and 82,376 participants. Childhood maltreatment was associated with adult attachment anxiety at r = .23 and attachment avoidance at r = .20, with stronger associations for emotional maltreatment. These are important population-level relationships, but they are far from deterministic: many people exposed to adversity do not show the same adult attachment pattern, and insecure adult attachment does not prove a history of trauma. Li et al. (2026).

In short: attachment trauma can be a useful formulation for discussing relational adversity and its possible consequences, but it should be used as a descriptive or emerging research construct rather than as a diagnosis.

What Does “Attachment Trauma” Mean?

The phrase has been used in several overlapping ways. In clinical writing, it often refers to repeated failures of safety, protection, emotional availability, or caregiving within a relationship on which a child depends. Examples may include abuse, severe neglect, chronic frightening behavior by a caregiver, prolonged emotional unavailability, or environments in which the person who is needed for protection is also a source of threat. A 2025 critical review proposed defining attachment trauma around prolonged caregiving failures and/or ongoing abuse within primary attachment relationships, while explicitly presenting this as a clinical conceptualization that still needs sharper boundaries and further empirical development. Farina and Schimmenti (2025).

The term is also being used more broadly in newer adult research. The Adult Attachment Trauma Questionnaire was developed to measure trauma-related phenomena in adult romantic attachment, including conflict around intimacy, attachment-related dissociation, fear of closeness, and harmful relational roles. Its initial 2025 validation used a general sample of 407 Italian adults, and a 2026 follow-up study in 345 adults supported a six-factor structure with a higher-order attachment-trauma factor. This is evidence that the construct can be operationalized in research; it is not evidence that a new clinical diagnosis has been established. Zagaria, Perinelli, and Lombardi (2025); Zagaria, Perinelli, and Lombardi (2026).

That distinction matters because the same phrase can otherwise carry three different meanings: a history of relational adversity, a current pattern of difficulties in attachment relationships, and a psychiatric condition. Research can support the first two without automatically creating the third.

What Research Actually Supports

1. Childhood maltreatment is associated with adult attachment insecurity

The most direct contemporary evidence comes from meta-analysis. Li and colleagues found small-to-moderate associations between childhood maltreatment and both attachment anxiety and avoidance across a very large literature. Emotional maltreatment showed particularly strong associations. A separate 2026 meta-analysis of 30 studies found that childhood sexual abuse was also significantly associated with both adult attachment anxiety and avoidance, while substantial heterogeneity showed that the strength of those relationships varied across studies and contexts. Li et al. (2026); Pastor-Cerezo and Iborra Cuéllar (2026).

These findings support risk, not destiny. An association of r = .23 or r = .20 means that childhood maltreatment explains only part of the variation in adult attachment dimensions. Development after adversity is shaped by many additional factors, including later relationships, temperament, social support, culture, subsequent stressors, treatment, and opportunities for corrective relational experiences.

2. Adult attachment insecurity is associated with mental health, but it is not a mental disorder

A meta-analysis of 224 studies, 245 samples, and 79,722 participants found that attachment anxiety and avoidance were associated with more negative mental-health indicators and less positive mental health. The association was stronger for attachment anxiety than for avoidance. The authors reported correlations of r = .42 between attachment anxiety and negative mental health and r = .28 between attachment avoidance and negative mental health. Zhang et al. (2022).

This does not turn attachment anxiety or avoidance into diagnoses. Adult romantic attachment is commonly modeled dimensionally: people vary in attachment anxiety, which concerns fears of rejection, abandonment, or insufficient availability, and attachment avoidance, which concerns discomfort with closeness, dependence, or relying on others. The familiar labels secure, anxious/preoccupied, dismissive-avoidant, and fearful-avoidant can summarize regions of that dimensional space, but they should not be treated as immutable personality types.

3. Attachment insecurity can matter after trauma

A systematic review of 138 studies found that attachment anxiety reliably predicted or was associated with higher post-traumatic stress symptoms, whereas findings for attachment avoidance were less consistent. Proposed mechanisms included stress appraisals, cognitive factors, self-esteem, emotion-regulation strategies, social factors, and characteristics of the trauma itself. Lim, Hodges, and Lilly (2020).

This is one reason attachment language can be clinically useful after trauma: it may help describe how a person seeks support, interprets availability, manages distance, or responds to closeness under stress. But post-traumatic stress symptoms remain a different construct from attachment anxiety or avoidance.

4. “Attachment trauma” is becoming measurable, but the science is still emerging

The development of the Adult Attachment Trauma Questionnaire is a notable change in the evidence base because it attempts to measure attachment trauma directly rather than inferring it from attachment style or trauma history. The 2025 development study reported a 28-item measure across six retained domains. The 2026 confirmatory study supported that structure in another general adult sample. Zagaria et al. (2025); Zagaria et al. (2026).

The appropriate conclusion is that attachment trauma is moving from broad clinical language toward more explicit research operationalization. Replication in larger, culturally diverse, longitudinal, and clinical samples is still needed. A new questionnaire does not by itself establish diagnostic thresholds, prevalence, prognosis, or a standard treatment protocol.

What Attachment Trauma Does Not Diagnose

The phrase “attachment trauma” does not currently identify a standalone DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 mental disorder. Formal diagnostic systems recognize conditions that can overlap with histories of relational adversity, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), complex PTSD in ICD-11, reactive attachment disorder (RAD), and disinhibited social engagement disorder (DSED). Those diagnoses have their own criteria and cannot be inferred from a general description of relationship difficulty.

The World Health Organization’s ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements lists PTSD, complex PTSD, reactive attachment disorder, and disinhibited social engagement disorder as distinct disorders specifically associated with stress. “Attachment trauma” is not listed as a separate diagnostic entity. World Health Organization (2024).

The same principle applies in DSM-oriented clinical practice. The American Psychiatric Association describes RAD and DSED as disorders associated with severe early social neglect or deprivation and emphasizes their childhood developmental context. Ordinary insecure adult attachment patterns are not “attachment disorders.” American Psychiatric Association.

Attachment Trauma Is Not the Same as an Insecure Attachment Style

A person can have elevated attachment anxiety or avoidance without a known trauma history. A person can also have a trauma history without fitting a simple insecure-style label. Attachment dimensions describe patterns of expectations, emotions, and behavior in close relationships; trauma describes exposure and its psychological consequences. They overlap statistically, but neither construct can substitute for the other.

This is especially important when people search for “attachment trauma symptoms” and encounter lists such as fear of abandonment, difficulty trusting, emotional shutdown, intense reassurance seeking, people-pleasing, jealousy, avoidance of intimacy, or push-pull behavior. Any of those experiences may occur in people with difficult relational histories, but each is nonspecific. They can arise from attachment insecurity, current relationship conditions, anxiety disorders, depression, PTSD, obsessive-compulsive processes, personality traits, learned communication patterns, or ordinary responses to an unsafe or unreliable relationship.

For example, repeated reassurance seeking can appear in attachment anxiety, but persistent intrusive doubts plus compulsive checking and reassurance can also be part of relationship OCD. Withdrawal during conflict may reflect attachment avoidance, but it can also reflect overwhelm, conflict learning, depression, fear, or the reciprocal demand-withdraw pattern. Good formulation asks what function the behavior serves and what evidence supports the explanation.

Attachment Trauma Is Not Automatically “Disorganized Attachment”

Online discussions often use “attachment trauma,” “disorganized attachment,” and “fearful-avoidant attachment” as if they were interchangeable. They belong to different research traditions and should be separated.

Infant disorganized attachment is a classification derived from observed behavior in the Strange Situation and related developmental procedures.
Adult Attachment Interview unresolved/disorganized classifications are coded from discourse concerning loss or trauma in an interview-based system.
Adult self-report attachment typically measures anxiety and avoidance in close or romantic relationships; the fearful-avoidant quadrant generally refers to high anxiety plus high avoidance.
Adult disorganization questionnaires are a newer and methodologically heterogeneous area of measurement.
Attachment trauma is a broader and still-developing construct describing adverse or overwhelming experiences in attachment relationships and their possible consequences.

A 2023 systematic review identified 18 measures of adult disorganized attachment across 27 papers and found inconsistent psychometric quality, concluding that the literature could not yet identify one clearly best measure. Pollard, Bucci, and Berry (2023). This alone is a strong reason to avoid presenting “disorganized attachment in adults” as a single, settled category.

The distinction between Adult Attachment Interview classifications and self-report romantic attachment is also empirically important. A meta-analytic study found only a trivial-to-small average association between AAI security and self-reported attachment-style dimensions, around r = .09. The methods capture related but substantially distinct aspects of attachment. Roisman et al. (2007).

Accordingly, an adult who scores high on both anxiety and avoidance on a self-report questionnaire should not be retrospectively diagnosed with infant disorganized attachment, and a history of childhood trauma should not be used to assign a fearful-avoidant label without appropriate measurement.

For the full adult taxonomy, Attachment Styles in Adults is the cluster pillar. Adult Attachment Theory owns the dimensional anxiety × avoidance model, and What Causes Attachment Styles? covers developmental and contextual origins without treating childhood as destiny. For terminology, Disorganized Attachment in Adults separates distinct disorganization constructs; Attachment Issues in Adults covers the broader colloquial umbrella; and Attachment Wounds explains the neighboring therapy-language term. Style-specific change guidance is covered in How to Heal Anxious Attachment, How to Heal Avoidant Attachment, and How to Heal Fearful-Avoidant Attachment.

Attachment Trauma vs. PTSD and Complex PTSD

PTSD is a formal diagnosis. In adults, it requires a qualifying traumatic exposure plus a defined pattern of re-experiencing, avoidance, changes in cognition and mood, and arousal/reactivity that persists long enough and causes clinically significant impairment. Relationship difficulties by themselves do not establish PTSD. National Institute of Mental Health.

Complex PTSD is a formal ICD-11 diagnosis. It includes the core PTSD symptom clusters plus persistent disturbances in self-organization involving affect regulation, negative self-concept, and relationships. It is often associated with sustained or repeated trauma such as childhood abuse or domestic violence. Maercker et al. (2022).

Attachment trauma can overlap with PTSD or complex PTSD when attachment relationships involve traumatic exposure and the person meets diagnostic criteria. The overlap should not be turned into equivalence. Someone may use attachment-trauma language to describe developmental or relational experiences without meeting criteria for PTSD or complex PTSD. Conversely, a person can have PTSD after a non-attachment trauma such as an accident or disaster.

Attachment Trauma vs. Reactive Attachment Disorder and DSED

Reactive Attachment Disorder and Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder are not names for insecure adult relationship styles. They are developmental clinical disorders associated with severe early caregiving deprivation or neglect. RAD involves markedly disturbed attachment behavior toward caregivers, while DSED involves developmentally inappropriate overfamiliarity with unfamiliar adults. The American Psychiatric Association describes both in childhood terms, and ICD-11 places them among disorders specifically associated with stress. American Psychiatric Association; World Health Organization (2024).

Calling an anxious, avoidant, or fearful-avoidant adult “attachment disordered” therefore creates clinical confusion. Adult romantic attachment constructs are usually measured as anxiety and avoidance and do not become RAD or DSED because a relationship is difficult.

What Can Attachment Trauma Look Like in Adults?

Because attachment trauma is not a diagnosis, there is no official list of adult symptoms. It is more accurate to speak about possible patterns that may warrant assessment. The patterns below can occur after relational adversity, but none is specific enough to establish attachment trauma on its own.

Closeness may trigger simultaneous longing and fear, especially when intimacy has historically been linked with threat, rejection, humiliation, or control.
A person may become highly sensitive to cues of abandonment, emotional distance, criticism, or inconsistency and may seek repeated reassurance when attachment threat is activated.
Another person may protect themselves through emotional distancing, reduced disclosure, self-reliance, or difficulty depending on others.
Conflict may produce rapid shifts among protest, pursuit, withdrawal, numbness, anger, appeasement, or dissociation.
Trust may be difficult to build or maintain, particularly when a close relationship has repeatedly paired dependence with unpredictability or danger.
Negative beliefs about worth, lovability, safety, or other people’s reliability may persist even in relationships that are more responsive than earlier ones.
Some people experience broader trauma-related symptoms such as intrusive memories, avoidance of reminders, hyperarousal, shame, dissociation, or emotional dysregulation; when present, those symptoms should be assessed in their own diagnostic context.

The strongest evidence supports looking at patterns and mechanisms rather than treating a checklist as proof. Adult attachment measures themselves vary substantially in what they assess, and a major review emphasized the importance of matching the measure to the exact attachment construct under study. Ravitz et al. (2010).

How Attachment Trauma Can Affect Relationships

Attachment-related adversity can shape the expectations brought into close relationships: whether support will be available, whether dependence is safe, whether conflict predicts abandonment, whether disclosure will be used against you, and whether another person can remain emotionally present during distress. When these expectations are activated, they can influence attention, interpretation, emotion regulation, and behavior.

This can produce self-reinforcing interpersonal cycles. One partner may seek more contact when distressed, while the other distances when feeling pressured. The first person experiences withdrawal as evidence that closeness is insecure and pursues harder; the second experiences pursuit as evidence that closeness is overwhelming and withdraws further. The resulting demand-withdraw cycle can resemble a simple anxious-versus-avoidant story, but research on couple conflict shows that the interaction pattern itself deserves attention rather than reducing each partner to a label.

The quality of current relationships also matters. Perceived partner responsiveness—feeling understood, valued, and cared for—can provide a relational context in which vulnerability becomes less threatening and intimacy can develop. That does not erase earlier adversity, and a supportive partner is not a substitute for treatment when trauma symptoms are severe. It does illustrate why adult functioning cannot be predicted from childhood history alone.

Likewise, the popular label “emotionally unavailable spouse” should be used cautiously. Low responsiveness or distance in one relationship may have many explanations, including stress, depression, conflict, incompatibility, learned coping, attachment avoidance, or current safety concerns. Diagnosing a partner’s attachment history from observed distance is unreliable.

Can Attachment Trauma Happen in Adulthood?

The classic attachment-trauma literature emphasizes early caregiving because childhood dependence gives caregivers exceptional influence over regulation, safety, and development. Yet attachment systems remain active in adulthood, and newer research explicitly examines overwhelming experiences within adult romantic attachment relationships. The emerging Adult Attachment Trauma Questionnaire is one example of this shift. Zagaria et al. (2025).

Adult relational trauma can include intimate partner violence, coercive control, chronic betrayal, or other experiences in which a trusted attachment figure is also a source of threat. Whether every painful breakup, rejection, infidelity, or emotionally disappointing relationship should be called attachment trauma is a different question. The term becomes less precise when it is stretched to include any attachment-related pain.

What Causes Attachment Trauma?

There is no single event or family pattern that automatically causes a standardized condition called attachment trauma. Research is strongest for severe and repeated adversity in caregiving or attachment relationships, including maltreatment, neglect, abuse, frightening or chaotic care, and contexts in which the person needed for safety is also a source of danger or persistent unavailability.

At the same time, developmental outcomes are probabilistic. The 2026 maltreatment meta-analysis demonstrates meaningful average associations with adult anxiety and avoidance while leaving substantial individual variation unexplained. Li et al. (2026). This matters clinically: history should inform formulation without becoming destiny, and current patterns should be assessed directly rather than inferred from childhood alone.

Does Attachment Trauma Mean Your Relationships Are Doomed?

No. Adult attachment shows both continuity and change. Attachment expectations can vary across relationships and contexts, and close relationships provide new information about safety, availability, trust, and responsiveness. A person may feel relatively secure with one partner and highly anxious or avoidant with another. Patterns can also shift over time as circumstances, relationships, and coping strategies change.

The practical implication is that a history of relational adversity is one influence on current relationships, not a verdict on them. Relationship quality depends on present-day behavior, partner responsiveness, communication, stress, compatibility, safety, and many other factors. The language of attachment is most useful when it clarifies a pattern that can be observed and changed.

What Does “Healing Attachment Trauma” Mean?

“Healing attachment trauma” is a common search phrase rather than the name of one standardized treatment protocol. A responsible clinical formulation begins by identifying what actually needs treatment: PTSD symptoms, complex PTSD, depression, anxiety, dissociation, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, interpersonal violence, emotion-regulation problems, relationship conflict, or persistent attachment insecurity may each require different priorities.

For people who meet criteria for PTSD, evidence-based trauma treatment targets PTSD directly. The National Institute of Mental Health describes psychotherapy and medication as the main treatment approaches and emphasizes assessment by a qualified mental-health professional. National Institute of Mental Health. Complex PTSD may require a broader formulation that includes safety, self-regulation, trauma processing, identity, and relational functioning. Maercker et al. (2022). For a comparison of the main adult PTSD therapies and the evidence on phase-based versus immediate trauma-focused care, see Therapy for Childhood Trauma in Adults: Evidence-Based Approaches and How They Differ.

For attachment insecurity more broadly, psychotherapy research provides a more modest but relevant finding. A meta-analysis of 36 studies involving 3,158 patients found that more secure pretreatment attachment was associated with better psychotherapy outcomes, and increases in attachment security during therapy tended to coincide with better outcomes. Preliminary moderator findings suggested that people lower in attachment security may benefit from therapies that explicitly attend to interpersonal interactions and close relationships. Levy et al. (2018).

This evidence supports working on relational expectations, emotion regulation, communication, mentalizing, boundaries, and the experience of safe dependence when those mechanisms are relevant. It does not support promises to “reprogram your attachment style” in a fixed number of days or the idea that one viral exercise can repair every form of developmental trauma.

Evidence-informed goals may include

Building safety and reducing ongoing exposure to abuse, coercion, or instability before interpreting distress as an internal attachment problem.
Learning to notice attachment activation: what situations trigger fear of abandonment, engulfment, rejection, criticism, or loss of autonomy.
Improving emotion regulation so that intense attachment threat can be tolerated without automatic escalation, collapse, or avoidance.
Testing old expectations against current evidence rather than assuming that every close relationship will reproduce earlier harm.
Developing clearer boundaries and more direct communication of needs.
Strengthening the ability to receive support and distinguish responsive closeness from controlling or unsafe closeness.
Processing traumatic memories with an evidence-based trauma treatment when trauma symptoms and diagnostic assessment indicate that this is appropriate.
Building relationships in which responsiveness, reliability, repair after conflict, and respect are repeatedly experienced over time.

In close relationships, emotional intimacy grows through disclosure, responsiveness, trust, and repeated experiences of being known without being controlled. This kind of relational learning can matter, but it should not be romanticized: no person should have to remain in an abusive relationship in order to “heal their attachment.”

When Professional Assessment Is Especially Useful

Professional assessment becomes especially useful when trauma-related experiences are persistent, severe, or impairing; when dissociation, panic, intrusive memories, nightmares, avoidance, self-harm, substance misuse, or marked functional decline are present; when relationship patterns repeatedly expose someone to danger; or when a person is unsure whether their difficulties are better explained by PTSD, complex PTSD, OCD, depression, anxiety, or another condition.

Assessment should separate exposure, symptoms, attachment constructs, current relationship conditions, and formal diagnosis. A therapist can use attachment theory as part of a formulation without treating an attachment label as a diagnosis.

How to Think About Online “Attachment Trauma Tests”

Online quizzes can be useful prompts for reflection, but they should not be treated as diagnostic tests unless they use a validated instrument for a clearly defined purpose and are interpreted appropriately. Adult attachment questionnaires typically measure attachment anxiety and avoidance or related dimensions. They do not establish trauma exposure, PTSD, complex PTSD, RAD, DSED, or a diagnosis called attachment trauma.

Even research measures require context. Self-report adult romantic attachment and Adult Attachment Interview classifications are not interchangeable, and their empirical convergence is low. Roisman et al. (2007). New attachment-trauma questionnaires are promising research tools, but current evidence does not justify converting a score into a clinical label or treatment plan without broader assessment.

Common Questions About Attachment Trauma

Is attachment trauma a real thing?

It is a real term used in clinical and research literature, and recent studies are working to define and measure it more precisely. The strongest evidence concerns relationships between relational adversity, attachment insecurity, trauma-related symptoms, and broader mental-health outcomes. The term itself remains an emerging construct rather than a standalone diagnosis.

Is attachment trauma a diagnosis?

No. “Attachment trauma” is not a standalone DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 diagnosis. A person may have a formal condition such as PTSD or ICD-11 complex PTSD, or may have clinically important relational difficulties without meeting criteria for those disorders.

What are the signs of attachment trauma in adults?

There is no official diagnostic sign list. Possible patterns include difficulty trusting, intense sensitivity to rejection or abandonment, fear of dependence, emotional distancing, approach-avoidance conflict around intimacy, dysregulation during close-relationship stress, and trauma-related symptoms when relevant. These experiences are nonspecific and need context.

Is attachment trauma the same as anxious attachment?

No. Attachment anxiety is a research dimension describing concerns about rejection, abandonment, and insufficient availability in close relationships. It can be associated with adverse experiences, but it does not prove trauma and is not itself a trauma diagnosis.

Is attachment trauma the same as fearful-avoidant attachment?

No. Fearful-avoidant is usually a categorical summary for high self-reported attachment anxiety plus high avoidance. Attachment trauma refers to adverse or overwhelming experiences in attachment relationships and their possible consequences. The constructs can overlap without being identical.

Is attachment trauma the same as disorganized attachment?

No. Infant disorganized attachment, AAI unresolved/disorganized classifications, adult disorganization measures, fearful-avoidant self-report patterns, and attachment trauma are distinct constructs and methods. Conflating them hides meaningful differences in what was measured and when.

Is attachment trauma the same as complex PTSD?

No. Complex PTSD is a formal ICD-11 diagnosis with specified criteria. Attachment trauma is a descriptive and emerging research construct. A person with severe relational trauma may meet criteria for complex PTSD, but that requires clinical assessment; the two terms are not synonyms.

Can attachment trauma happen in adult relationships?

Potentially, yes. Newer research explicitly studies attachment-traumatic processes in adult romantic relationships, and traumatic experiences such as intimate partner violence can occur within adult attachment bonds. The evidence base for adult attachment trauma as a distinct construct is newer than the developmental literature.

Can attachment trauma be healed?

People can improve trauma symptoms, relationship functioning, emotion regulation, trust, and attachment security. The route depends on the problem being treated. There is no single universally established “attachment trauma healing” protocol, and change is better understood as a process of treating specific symptoms and building safer, more flexible relational patterns.

What therapy is best for attachment trauma?

There is no single therapy established as best for a diagnosis called attachment trauma because that diagnosis does not exist. Treatment should follow the assessed problem. Evidence-based trauma therapies are appropriate when PTSD is present; other presentations may call for approaches that target depression, anxiety, dissociation, OCD, emotion regulation, relationship processes, or attachment-related expectations. A clinician’s formulation should guide the choice.

The Bottom Line

Attachment trauma is most useful when it names a clinically meaningful question: what happens when experiences that should provide safety, protection, and connection also become sources of threat, neglect, unpredictability, or overwhelming distress? Research supports lasting associations between childhood maltreatment and adult attachment insecurity, between insecure attachment and mental health, and between attachment insecurity and post-traumatic stress. New studies are also beginning to measure attachment trauma directly.

The evidence supports precision. Attachment trauma is not an official diagnosis, not proof of a particular attachment style, not a synonym for fearful-avoidant or disorganized attachment, and not the same thing as PTSD, complex PTSD, RAD, or DSED. Its value lies in connecting relational history with measurable present-day processes while preserving the distinctions that make diagnosis, research, and treatment accurate.

Childhood Trauma and Attachment: What Research Supports and What It Does Not