Written by: Erin Voith, Registered Clinical Counsellor at Peak Resilience
Book a session with me | erin.voith.counselling@gmail.com
In a previous post, I outlined the four attachment styles (anxious, avoidant, disorganized, secure), and the environments that gives rise to the development of each. If you’re not familiar with these, it might be worth reviewing. In this article, beyond focusing on characteristic behaviours, I’d like to shed some light on the internal subjective experience of each style.
What I find fascinating, but ultimately not surprising, is that the behavioural patterns of each attachment style are extensions of their internal experiences. So, more anxiously attached individuals don’t only hyperactivate their behaviours (such as checking and managing relationship consistency), their internal systems are hyperactive too (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2016). They experience hypervigilance and sensitivity towards signs of relationship uncertainty, more intense emotional experiences (including fear, anger, and shame), and more rumination about perceived relational threats. Importantly, this intensity is not a conscious choice! Instead, this demonstrates how profoundly our internal worlds are shaped by our environment. If one feels more intensely, they are more likely to express themselves intensely, and thus more likely to get the attention of a caregiver.
So, conversely, a more avoidantly attached person does not just deactivate their attachment seeking behaviours, they unconsciously inhibit, suppress, and disconnect from their internal experiences too (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2016). They are less perceptive of relationship cues and more distant from their emotional experiences. Attention is directed away from this kind of material. This disconnection allows them to maintain their independence, and protects them from the expectation of rejection or dismissal if they were to seek comfort in another. In sum, these are adaptive ways of coping in dismissive environments.
The internal world of someone with disorganized attachment is harder to predict. As we previously discussed, these individuals do not develop a coherent attachment strategy and instead have competing and contradictory approach and avoidance motivations. As Mikulincer and Shaver (2016) explain, someone with this attachment style tends to experience a desire for closeness, as well as anxiety about a relationship’s standing. They may be quite perceptive of relationship shifts and experience fairly intense emotions. Yet their reluctance to actually rely on or connect with others can lead to a great deal of inner turmoil, confusion, and even dissociation or numbing as their systems try to suppress any experience that might require outside support.
Lastly, let’s review the internal world of someone with a more secure attachment style. People in this group do not need to amplify or dismiss relationship information or their emotions. They are able to attune to this information accurately, and use it effectively. They identify and tolerate emotions in order to constructively solve problems and meet their needs (Mikulincer and Shaver, 2016).
Realistically, this article only touches the surface of these internal worlds. Still, I hope it has provided some new information, and maybe piqued your interest about the depths of how our psychologies are shaped. In my next article, I’ll outline some direction forward for each of these styles.
If you want to chat more, feel free to book a free 15 minute phone consultation with me.
Or email me: erin.voith.counselling@gmail.com
References:
Brown, D., & Elliott, D.S. (2016). Attachment Disturbances in Adults: Treatment for Comprehensive Repair. W.W. Norton and Company.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
