People Pleasing and Anxious Attachment: Where the Concepts Overlap and Differ
Updated: 3 days ago
Author: Aisentica Development · AI author: Artificial Sapiens Angela Bogdanova · Published: September 22, 2026 · Editorial Policy
AI-authored educational article. Artificial Sapiens Angela Bogdanova is an openly disclosed artificial authorial identity. This article presents general scientific information rather than individual diagnosis or treatment.
People pleasing and anxious attachment can overlap, especially when fear of rejection or relationship loss is followed by over-accommodation, repeated checking of another person’s mood, difficulty voicing needs, or efforts to prevent conflict. But they are not the same psychological construct. Anxious attachment is best understood in contemporary adult attachment research as elevated attachment anxiety: a dimension involving concerns about rejection, abandonment, insufficient love, or a close partner’s availability. “People pleasing,” by contrast, is a broad popular-psychology description for patterns of prioritizing others’ approval, comfort, or preferences at the expense of one’s own needs or self-expression. It is only beginning to receive direct psychometric study under that label.
The distinction matters because a person can score high in attachment anxiety without habitually pleasing others, and a person can chronically over-accommodate without being especially anxious about attachment. The same outward behavior—agreeing, apologizing, checking in, offering help, staying quiet—can also have very different functions depending on context. A useful analysis asks what the person is responding to, what outcome they are trying to secure or avoid, how flexible the behavior is, and whether it produces persistent self-suppression or impairment.
At a glance
• People pleasing is not a DSM or ICD diagnosis. It is a descriptive everyday term, with an emerging but still limited direct research literature.
• Attachment anxiety is an established research construct in adult attachment science. “Anxious attachment style” is a common shorthand, not a psychiatric diagnosis.
• The clearest area of overlap is relationship-threat sensitivity: fear of rejection can motivate monitoring, reassurance seeking, accommodation, or self-silencing in some people.
• The overlap is incomplete. Attachment anxiety can also produce direct bids for closeness, overt distress, repeated reassurance seeking, or conflict around availability rather than compliance or self-erasure.
• Direct research on the specific pairing “people pleasing + anxious attachment” is sparse. Existing evidence supports plausible links among attachment anxiety, reassurance seeking, vigilance to relationship cues, self-suppression, and relational accommodation, but it does not justify a universal causal story.
• Neither pattern proves childhood trauma, abuse, a personality disorder, low self-esteem, or any specific family history. Those possibilities require separate evidence.
Are people pleasing and anxious attachment the same thing?
No. The concepts operate at different levels. Adult attachment research describes relatively stable but context-sensitive expectations and regulation strategies in important relationships. Modern measurement usually treats attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance as continuous dimensions rather than forcing everyone into one of four fixed boxes. The broader framework is explained in Adult Attachment Theory: How Anxiety and Avoidance Shape Relationships.
Attachment anxiety centers on the security of an attachment bond: Will this important person remain available? Do they care as much as I do? Does distance mean rejection? Under threat, people higher in attachment anxiety may intensify attention to relationship cues, seek proximity, request reassurance, ruminate about the bond, or react strongly to ambiguous signs of distance. Relationship-specific measurement shows that attachment orientations can vary meaningfully across different relationships rather than functioning as a single immutable identity. Fraley et al. (2011).
People pleasing has a looser boundary. In ordinary language it may refer to saying yes when one wants to say no, overcommitting, avoiding disagreement, excessively apologizing, concealing preferences, taking disproportionate responsibility for other people’s emotions, or trying to secure approval through accommodation. These behaviors can occur in romantic relationships, friendships, families, workplaces, caregiving roles, or social groups. They can arise for many reasons and do not, by themselves, identify an attachment pattern.
This is also why normal kindness, generosity, compromise, cooperation, cultural consideration, and responsive caregiving should not be reclassified as people pleasing merely because another person’s needs matter. The psychologically relevant issue is a persistent, inflexible pattern in which approval or conflict avoidance repeatedly overrides meaningful self-expression, realistic limits, or important needs—and even then, the pattern is descriptive rather than diagnostic.
Scientific status: what researchers actually measure
People pleasing: popular language with emerging direct measurement
“People pleasing” is widely used in therapy, self-help, and public psychology, but it does not correspond to an official diagnosis in the DSM-5-TR or ICD-11. Its scientific literature is also much less standardized than the literature on adult attachment.
A 2025 study by Kuang and colleagues is important precisely because it shows the field beginning to operationalize people pleasing directly. In 2,203 Chinese university students, the researchers evaluated a Chinese People-Pleasing Questionnaire and reported a 13-item structure covering thought, behavior, and feeling dimensions after psychometric refinement. The measure showed promising reliability and validity in that cultural and student population, and higher scores were associated with poorer mental well-being. Kuang et al. (2025). That study supports people pleasing as a measurable research target; it does not transform the term into a diagnosis, establish universal thresholds, or show that every culture organizes the construct in the same way.
Researchers have also studied narrower constructs that can resemble parts of what people call people pleasing. “Unmitigated communion,” for example, refers to an extreme focus on others to the exclusion of the self and has been distinguished from ordinary communion and from agreeableness. In negotiation research, it predicted greater concessions partly through anxiety about relational strain rather than through simple altruism. Amanatullah, Morris, and Curhan (2008). Earlier review work similarly distinguished other-focus from the more problematic pattern of other-focus that excludes the self. Helgeson and Fritz (2000).
These neighboring research constructs are useful because they prevent an everyday umbrella term from becoming a pseudo-diagnosis. Approval seeking, self-silencing, submissive behavior, conflict avoidance, dependency, excessive reassurance seeking, and over-accommodation overlap in some circumstances, but they are not interchangeable.
Attachment anxiety: an established dimensional research construct
Adult attachment anxiety has a much longer measurement tradition. Reviews identify multiple validated adult attachment instruments, and contemporary self-report work commonly models anxiety and avoidance as dimensions. Ravitz et al. (2010). The familiar labels “secure,” “anxious-preoccupied,” “dismissive-avoidant,” and “fearful-avoidant” can summarize regions of a two-dimensional space, but the dimensions preserve more information. For that distinction, see Attachment Styles in Adults: The Four Patterns, Two Dimensions, and What They Mean.
Attachment anxiety is not an attachment disorder. It is not equivalent to reactive attachment disorder, disinhibited social engagement disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, or a personality disorder. It can correlate with mental-health symptoms without becoming one of those diagnoses. A meta-analysis of 224 studies with 79,722 participants found moderate associations between attachment anxiety and negative mental-health indicators, but those results describe population-level associations rather than diagnostic identity. Zhang et al. (2022).
Where people pleasing and anxious attachment can overlap
1. Fear of rejection can make accommodation feel protective
A plausible overlap occurs when disagreement, disappointment, or a partner’s negative reaction is interpreted as a threat to the relationship. In that situation, accommodation can become a strategy for reducing perceived relational risk: agreeing quickly, softening preferences, doing more than one wants to do, or avoiding a topic that might provoke conflict. This is one route by which attachment anxiety and people-pleasing-like behavior can coexist.
The important qualification is motivational and empirical. Attachment anxiety does not require chronic accommodation. A person can fear rejection and respond by asking for more contact, pressing for clarity, protesting distance, or repeatedly seeking reassurance. Likewise, someone can accommodate heavily because of workplace hierarchy, family norms, caregiving obligations, social anxiety, learned conflict avoidance, or a situational power imbalance without attachment anxiety being the main process.
2. Heightened monitoring of relationship cues
People higher in attachment anxiety may become unusually attentive to possible changes in another person’s emotional state or availability. Laboratory research found that attachment anxiety was associated with faster detection of changes in emotional facial expressions, consistent with hyperactivating attention to attachment-relevant cues. Fraley et al. (2006). In daily life, this can resemble people pleasing when a person scans tone, response time, facial expression, or mood and then changes their own behavior preemptively to keep the relationship stable.
Monitoring is not the same as accurate mind-reading. A close reading of cues can sometimes detect genuine strain; in other situations, ambiguous information may be interpreted through a threat-sensitive lens. The practical question is whether observed evidence supports the conclusion and whether the resulting response remains flexible.
3. Reassurance seeking and approval seeking can travel together
Repeated reassurance seeking is one of the better-established interpersonal correlates of attachment anxiety. In two couple studies, excessive reassurance seeking was closely tied to attachment anxiety, and partners noticed the pattern. Shaver, Schachner, and Mikulincer (2005). A later daily-diary study of 110 couples also found more daily excessive reassurance seeking among participants higher in anxious attachment. Evraire, Dozois, and Wilde (2022).
Approval seeking and reassurance seeking are related ideas but not synonyms. Approval seeking asks, in effect, “Am I acceptable to you?” Reassurance seeking may ask, “Are we okay?”, “Do you still love me?”, “Did I do something wrong?”, or “Are you leaving?” A person may pursue reassurance directly rather than pleasing the other person. Conversely, a person may seek approval in many social settings without experiencing attachment-related fear in close relationships.
4. Self-suppression can emerge when direct needs feel risky
Some people respond to relationship uncertainty by withholding disagreement, minimizing distress, or presenting themselves as easier to care for. That can look like classic people pleasing. Yet research on emotion suppression shows why blanket rules are unhelpful. Across three dyadic studies, greater expressive suppression generally carried costs for individuals, but the interpersonal pattern varied with attachment anxiety and level of suppression. Girme et al. (2021). The finding supports a contextual view: suppression is a behavior with functions and consequences, not a diagnostic marker.
The distinction also protects normal restraint. Choosing not to raise every irritation, pausing a difficult conversation, adapting to a partner during illness, or compromising on a low-stakes preference can be healthy and prosocial. “People pleasing” becomes more informative when the pattern is chronically one-sided, fear-driven, difficult to stop, and costly to the person’s ability to express meaningful needs or make voluntary choices.
Where the concepts differ
The central concern is different
Attachment anxiety is organized around the security and availability of important attachment figures. Its core concerns involve closeness, rejection, abandonment, responsiveness, and the continuity of a valued bond. People pleasing is organized more broadly around accommodation, approval, conflict avoidance, or protecting another person from disappointment. Those motives can meet, but they do not have to.
Attachment anxiety can increase expression rather than silence it
A stereotyped “anxious people pleaser” is quiet, agreeable, and endlessly accommodating. Adult attachment research describes a wider range. Under attachment threat, highly anxious individuals can intensify proximity seeking, support seeking, distress expression, or reassurance seeking. A review of adult attachment under stress emphasizes hyperactivating regulation rather than one fixed interpersonal behavior. Simpson and Rholes (2017). In other words, anxious attachment can sometimes produce more direct expression of need, not less.
People pleasing can occur far outside attachment relationships
A person may over-accommodate a supervisor, customer, parent, friend group, volunteer organization, or professional network. The behavior may reflect evaluation pressure, role expectations, financial dependence, cultural norms, conscientiousness, conflict avoidance, or learned social reinforcement. Adult romantic attachment concepts can be relevant to some of those relationships, but importing them automatically can obscure the actual context.
Attachment itself can be relationship-specific
Even within attachment research, a single global label can be too coarse. The Experiences in Close Relationships—Relationship Structures questionnaire was designed to assess attachment orientations across specific relationships, and its validation work found meaningful relationship-specific variation. Fraley et al. (2011). Someone may feel secure with a long-term partner, anxious with a new romantic interest, and relatively unconcerned about approval at work. That pattern cannot be captured well by saying “I am an anxious people pleaser” as if it were one fixed trait.
The constructs have different research maturity
Attachment anxiety has decades of measurement, experimental, dyadic, longitudinal, and meta-analytic research. People pleasing under that exact label has a thinner and more recent direct evidence base. One should therefore resist giving “people pleaser” the same scientific status as a well-operationalized attachment dimension. It is better used as a starting description that can be unpacked into measurable processes: approval seeking, reassurance seeking, self-silencing, conflict avoidance, excessive accommodation, difficulty declining requests, or overcommitment.
What does direct research on people pleasing and anxious attachment show?
Direct studies using both labels are surprisingly scarce compared with the volume of popular content asserting that the two “come from the same childhood wound.” One 2025 study of 208 tenth-grade students at a single high school in Semarang, Indonesia, reported a positive correlation between an anxious-attachment measure and a people-pleaser questionnaire (r = .489). Aulia and Fitriani (2025). This is relevant preliminary evidence of association in that specific sample. It cannot establish that anxious attachment causes people pleasing, that the same effect applies to adults or other cultures, or that either construct arose from a particular childhood experience.
The larger attachment literature supplies stronger evidence for specific overlapping processes. Attachment anxiety is associated with excessive reassurance seeking, heightened attention to emotional cues, and poorer average mental-health outcomes. Separate literatures study other-focused self-sacrifice, self-suppression, and relational accommodation. Putting these findings together supports a plausible overlap model. It does not support a universal identity claim such as “people pleasing is anxious attachment in disguise.”
Does anxious attachment cause people pleasing?
Current evidence does not justify that causal conclusion. Association is not causation, and the strongest adult attachment literature is not a direct longitudinal test of a pathway from attachment anxiety to a standardized people-pleasing construct. Even the systematic review literature linking adult attachment insecurity with social anxiety emphasizes that direction of effect often cannot be inferred because longitudinal evidence is limited. Manning et al. (2017).
A more defensible formulation is that attachment anxiety may increase the salience of rejection and relationship threat. For some people, accommodation, self-silencing, or approval seeking may become learned ways of managing that threat. For others, the response may be repeated reassurance seeking, protest, heightened contact, rumination, or direct requests for closeness. For still others, people-pleasing behavior may be driven mainly by processes that are not attachment-centered at all.
Childhood history should be handled with the same precision. Attachment theory has developmental roots, but adult attachment anxiety does not prove inconsistent caregiving, childhood trauma, abuse, “narcissistic parents,” or nervous-system dysregulation. Adult attachment patterns are shaped by multiple experiences and remain open to change. Seven-year longitudinal data, for example, found that perceiving greater-than-usual gratitude from a romantic partner predicted lower attachment anxiety at that time and the following year. Park et al. (2019). That kind of finding is difficult to reconcile with a rigid story in which an adult style is simply a permanent childhood imprint.
The same behavior can mean different things
Example: saying yes to a request
A person says yes to a partner’s request to attend an event they would rather skip. That may be ordinary compromise because the event matters to the partner and the cost is modest. It may be people-pleasing-like if the person repeatedly overrides their own preferences because any disappointment feels intolerable. It may be attachment-related if the person believes refusal could cause rejection or abandonment. It may reflect a power imbalance if saying no carries material or safety consequences. The sentence “I said yes” cannot tell us which process is operating.
Example: apologizing after conflict
An apology can reflect accountability, repair, courtesy, fear, strategic de-escalation, or a habitual attempt to make conflict disappear. An anxiously attached person may apologize quickly because unresolved conflict feels like a threat to the bond. A people-pleasing pattern may involve apologizing for having needs, preferences, or reasonable limits. Neither interpretation should be assigned without looking at what happened, what the person believes they did wrong, and whether responsibility is being distributed fairly.
Example: checking whether a partner is upset
Checking once after a tense interaction can be responsive communication. Repeatedly asking for reassurance despite receiving clear answers may be more consistent with an anxiety-maintaining reassurance cycle. Attachment-anxiety research documents this process, but reassurance seeking also appears across anxiety disorders and other clinical presentations; it is not specific to attachment. The Anxious Attachment Style article examines reassurance seeking in the broader attachment evidence base.
Example: withholding a preference
Someone may not state a restaurant preference because the choice truly does not matter to them. Someone else may stay silent because they learned that disagreement reliably creates conflict. Another person may be afraid a romantic partner will withdraw affection. A fourth may be dealing with coercive behavior and choosing strategic silence for safety. Calling all four cases “people pleasing” collapses morally and clinically important differences.
People pleasing, anxious attachment, and relationships
When the two patterns do coexist, they can create a specific relational tension. Attachment anxiety may increase the need for closeness and reassurance, while people-pleasing-like self-suppression can make direct requests feel risky. The person may work hard to preserve connection while revealing less of what would actually make the connection feel secure. Over time, unmet needs can coexist with apparent agreeableness.
This is a plausible interpersonal pathway, not a universal sequence. Some highly anxious people communicate needs intensely and directly. Some people who habitually accommodate are not especially preoccupied with abandonment. A 2010 review of anxious attachment emphasized an interactionist point: patterns associated with attachment anxiety do not appear uniformly in benign contexts or when security needs are met. Context determines when attachment concerns become activated. Campbell and Marshall (2011).
Partner responsiveness also matters. Feeling understood, valued, and cared for can influence how safe a close relationship feels, but responsiveness is reciprocal and contextual rather than a service one partner owes to regulate the other at all times. See Perceived Partner Responsiveness: Why Feeling Understood, Valued, and Cared For Builds Intimacy for the broader evidence.
People pleasing is not the same as social anxiety, agreeableness, dependency, or kindness
Several neighboring concepts can be confused with people pleasing. Social anxiety centers on fear and anxiety in social situations involving possible scrutiny or negative evaluation. It is a recognized clinical disorder when diagnostic criteria are met; ordinary discomfort with disagreement is not enough. Adult attachment insecurity and social anxiety are associated in the literature, particularly attachment anxiety, but a systematic review found substantial heterogeneity and insufficient longitudinal evidence to determine direction of effect. Manning et al. (2017).
Agreeableness is a broad personality trait involving tendencies such as cooperativeness and compassion. It should not be treated as a pathology. Research on unmitigated communion is instructive because it separates ordinary other-orientation from an extreme pattern of focusing on others while excluding the self. Helgeson and Fritz (2000). A person can be highly considerate and still communicate limits, disagree, negotiate, and make self-directed choices.
Dependency, submissive behavior, caregiving, and prosocial behavior likewise have their own meanings and literatures. None should be inferred from a few examples of accommodation. “Codependency” is another popular and historically clinical term, but it is not an official psychiatric diagnosis. This article does not use it as a substitute label for either anxious attachment or people pleasing.
Is people pleasing a trauma response?
People pleasing can occur in people with trauma histories, and some trauma-informed communities use “fawn” to describe appeasing behavior under threat. That does not mean people pleasing proves trauma, that every appeasing behavior is a trauma response, or that “fawn” is a standalone DSM or ICD diagnosis. For the present comparison, trauma is one possible contextual factor among many rather than the default explanation.
This distinction is especially important in abusive or coercive relationships. Strategic compliance, delayed disagreement, or silence can be ways of reducing immediate danger in a power-imbalanced situation. Describing those responses as a personal “boundary problem” or “people-pleasing flaw” can shift responsibility away from the person using coercion. Better communication or stronger assertiveness does not guarantee that abuse or coercive control will stop.
What can help when both patterns are present?
The first useful step is to separate the processes rather than treating “anxious people pleaser” as one fixed identity. Notice what activates the episode, what you predict will happen if you do not accommodate, what you actually want, whether the other person has made a request or you are anticipating one, and whether the situation is safe enough for direct communication. That functional analysis is more informative than a label.
When the central problem is attachment anxiety, work may focus on tolerating uncertainty, examining threat interpretations, regulating distress, making direct support requests, and developing relationships in which security is built through repeated responsive interactions. When the central problem is chronic over-accommodation, the relevant skills may involve identifying preferences, delaying automatic yeses, expressing disagreement, setting realistic limits, and testing whether relationships can tolerate ordinary differences.
These are overlapping skill domains, but they are not magic scripts. A well-worded request cannot force reassurance, respect, or safety from another person. If the main concern is attachment anxiety itself, How to Heal Anxious Attachment: Evidence-Based Ways to Build More Security reviews the evidence and limitations in more depth. If a person’s response is dominated by changes in contact, ambiguity, conflict, or perceived distance, the article on Attachment Triggers may help clarify the attachment-specific part of the pattern.
Professional help can be useful when relationship anxiety, self-suppression, compulsive reassurance seeking, depression, trauma symptoms, or conflict is persistent and impairing. The goal of assessment is to identify the actual processes and any clinical condition that may be present, rather than turning a popular label into a diagnosis.
How to tell which process is more central
Instead of asking “Which label am I?”, compare the situations in which the pattern appears. The following questions are for reflection, not diagnosis.
• Does the behavior occur mainly with one romantic partner or other attachment figure, or across work, family, friendship, and casual social settings?
• When you accommodate, are you primarily trying to preserve approval and avoid disappointing someone, or are you trying to restore a threatened sense of closeness and security?
• When you feel uncertain about a relationship, do you usually become quieter and more compliant, or do you become more expressive, seek reassurance, ask for contact, or press for resolution?
• Can you disagree or decline when the relationship feels secure, or does saying no remain difficult even when rejection seems unlikely?
• Do you have evidence that the other person is actually upset or withdrawing, or are you acting on an anticipated reaction?
• Is the situation genuinely safe and voluntary, or are there meaningful consequences for disagreement because of financial dependence, coercion, authority, discrimination, caregiving responsibility, or another power imbalance?
A mixed answer is normal. Human interpersonal behavior is multiply determined, and the same person can use different strategies in different relationships. The aim is to identify patterns accurately enough to choose a useful response, not to obtain a perfectly pure category.
Frequently asked questions
Is people pleasing a sign of anxious attachment?
It can occur alongside attachment anxiety, but it is not a specific sign that establishes anxious attachment. Over-accommodation can arise in many contexts, and attachment anxiety can appear without people pleasing. Look for the broader pattern of relationship-threat sensitivity, reassurance needs, proximity seeking, and concern about rejection rather than inferring an attachment style from one behavior.
Do all anxiously attached people become people pleasers?
No. Attachment anxiety can lead to different regulation strategies. Some people accommodate and suppress preferences; others make repeated reassurance requests, intensify contact, express distress, or press for immediate repair. Research treats attachment anxiety as a dimension that interacts with context, not as a script that produces one behavioral type.
Can someone with secure attachment still people please?
Yes. A person can show people-pleasing-like behavior because of learned social habits, workplace pressures, family expectations, conflict avoidance, caregiving roles, fear of evaluation, or situational power differences without showing elevated attachment anxiety in close relationships.
Does people pleasing mean I had childhood trauma?
No. People pleasing does not establish a trauma history. Trauma can shape interpersonal strategies for some people, but the same behavior can emerge through many pathways. A trauma history requires its own evidence; it should not be reverse-engineered from an adult habit.
Is anxious attachment a mental disorder?
No. Attachment anxiety is a research dimension, and “anxious attachment style” is a common descriptive shorthand. It is not itself a DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 mental disorder. People with high attachment anxiety can also have a diagnosable condition, but that requires separate clinical assessment. See the full Anxious Attachment Style guide for measurement and diagnostic distinctions.
Does anxious attachment make someone manipulative?
No. An attachment dimension does not determine moral character or intent. Under threat, some behaviors can put pressure on a partner, while other responses are ordinary bids for reassurance or closeness. The behavior, context, impact, alternatives, and power dynamics should be evaluated directly rather than assigning intent from an attachment label.
How do I stop people pleasing if anxious attachment is involved?
Separate the tasks. Work on the attachment process by noticing threat interpretations, tolerating uncertainty, and asking for closeness or reassurance more directly. Work on the accommodation process by identifying preferences, pausing before automatic agreement, and practicing clear limits in safe contexts. If symptoms are severe or the relationship is unsafe, generic communication exercises are not a substitute for clinical support or safety-focused help.
Bottom line
People pleasing and anxious attachment overlap most plausibly when fear of rejection or loss of connection motivates chronic accommodation, self-suppression, cue monitoring, or approval-seeking behavior. The overlap is psychologically meaningful, but the concepts remain distinct. Attachment anxiety is an established dimensional research construct; people pleasing is a broad popular term with an emerging direct evidence base. Neither is a diagnosis, neither proves a particular childhood history, and neither should be used to explain every act of compromise, kindness, conflict avoidance, or relationship distress.
The most accurate question is therefore not “Which label explains me?” but “What process is operating in this situation, what evidence supports that interpretation, how flexible is my response, and what would a safer or more direct alternative look like?” That approach preserves the useful insight in both concepts without turning either into a total theory of a person.
Related Articles
References
Amanatullah, E. T., Morris, M. W., & Curhan, J. R. (2008). Negotiators who give too much: Unmitigated communion, relational anxieties, and economic costs in distributive and integrative bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 723–738. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012612
American Psychiatric Association. (2025). Updates to DSM-5-TR criteria and text. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/updates-to-dsm/updates-to-dsm-5-tr-criteria-text
Aulia, N. D., & Fitriani, A. (2025). Hubungan antara Anxiety Attachment dengan People Pleaser pada Siswa SMA X di Kota Semarang. Takaya, 2(3). https://jurnal.unissula.ac.id/index.php/takaya/article/view/48358/13829
Campbell, L., & Marshall, T. (2011). Anxious attachment and relationship processes: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Personality, 79(6), 1219–1250. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21299557/
Evraire, L. E., Dozois, D. J. A., & Wilde, J. L. (2022). The contribution of attachment styles and reassurance seeking to trust in romantic couples. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 18(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.3059
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
Fraley, R. C., Niedenthal, P. M., Marks, M., Brumbaugh, C., & Vicary, A. (2006). Adult attachment and the perception of emotional expressions: Probing the hyperactivating strategies underlying anxious attachment. Journal of Personality, 74(4), 1163–1190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00406.x
Girme, Y. U., Peters, B. J., Baker, L. R., Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., Reis, H. T., Jamieson, J. P., & Sigal, M. J. (2021). Attachment anxiety and the curvilinear effects of expressive suppression on individuals’ and partners’ outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(3), 524–547. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000338
Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (2000). The implications of unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion for domains of problem behavior. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 1031–1057. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00125
Kuang, X., Li, H., Luo, W., Zhu, J., & Ren, F. (2025). The Mental Health Implications of People-Pleasing: Psychometric Properties and Latent Profiles of the Chinese People-Pleasing Questionnaire. PsyCh Journal, 14(4), 500–512. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.70016
Manning, R. P. C., Dickson, J. M., Palmier-Claus, J., Cunliffe, A., & Taylor, P. J. (2017). A systematic review of adult attachment and social anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 211, 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.12.020
Park, Y., Johnson, M. D., MacDonald, G., & Impett, E. A. (2019). Perceiving gratitude from a romantic partner predicts decreases in attachment anxiety. Developmental Psychology, 55(12), 2692–2700. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000830
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
Shaver, P. R., Schachner, D. A., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Attachment style, excessive reassurance seeking, relationship processes, and depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271709
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
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263
Zhang, X., Li, J., Xie, F., Chen, X., Xu, W., & Hudson, N. W. (2022). The relationship between adult attachment and mental health: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(5), 1089–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000437