Wise Readers,
Finding someone just like you is usually a good bet for a great match. But when should you avoid picking a mate with your same attachment style? What styles tend to wind up (happily) together? What style partner should you pick if you yourself are Insecurely attached? And how can you change your sweetie’s style?
Read on!
From Kimberly: —I’m Insecure; Who Should I Pick, And How Can I Change A Partner?—
Loved the article although it made me sad. I was engaged to a man who as I read this article I’d say is avoidant, and I am anxious ambivalent. He was always distancing and I was clamoring to win him back. I always felt there wasn’t enough intimacy, and he felt there was too much. It was a nightmare. Is our pattern unusual, and what do you know about the match between attachment styles and couples’ success? Should I pick someone with my same style in the future? Any other advice?
PS: Your article told me how to change myself, and now I’m wondering, is there a way to change someone else? Could I have done something to keep my fiance?
Duana’s response:
Dear Kimberly, I’m sorry your engagement didn’t work out. One of the more common issues in long-term relationships is the dreaded Intimacy Gap (term courtesy of relationship author Susan Page)—a phenomenon where one partner craves more genuine sharing of all aspects of the self than the other does.
Here’s the thing: We all want some connection. Evolution long ago cast from the Gene Pool those who didn’t play at all with others. But some of us want a lot more real sharing than others do, often due to attachment style differences. And that’s when you fall into The Gap.
Intimacy, which Susan Page defined as “sharing all aspects of the self without fearing loss of identity”, is a gradual thing in its real form; indeed, it’s smart to become intimate slowly, only revealing your core Self across time, because it’s time and experience with others that allow us to make sure our partner is trustworthy and loyal.
But people with Insecure attachment styles will often fake or rush intimacy, becoming pseudo-intimate because that way, at least a few emotional needs are quickly met with less investment and lower odds of getting hurt.
For instance, folks with Anxious/Ambivalent attachment, such as yourself, may want a lot of emotional reassurance and personal revelations (too) early and often in the relationship. Intimacy—or its signs—can assuage fears that you’re more in-love than you are beloved, that you are expendable and will be abandoned. But the reassurance is short-lived. Then it’s time for your partner to negate these frightening emotions by showing more commitment, emotional attachment, and admiration—or else watch as the Anxious/Avoidant partner is filled with greater and greater fear.
On the other hand, people with Avoidant styles—such as your ex— tend to want the immediate *trappings* of intimacy—perhaps some intense emotional sharing up-front, combined with sex—because they don’t want or are fearful of the gradual and continual unfolding of Self that is true intimacy. They may confuse their partners by emotionally and physically distancing just when things seemed like they were going great. These are the lovers who look at you like you’re nuts when you express an interest in moving the relationship to the next level…after they themselves have alluded to or outright planned it; the partners who tell you their last lover caused all the trouble in the relationship—but then they fabricate issues just when things are perking along problem-free with you; the boyfriends and girlfriends who offer their bathrobe and house key so you can come by anytime—then get cold and aloof when you use said bathrobe and/or key; the would-be spouses who offer an engagement, then won’t set the date; the husbands or wives who manage to be married-but-not-married—taking separate vacations, not consulting their spouse about matters great or small, and generally acting single even though they signed The Piece Of Paper. I suspect that most Come Closer, Go Away behavior at every level of relationship has Avoidant attachment as its backdrop. As you know, it’s painful~and confusing as heck if you’re on the receiving end.
And ironically, Avoidant people *are* more likely to do what Anxious/Ambivalent types fear: abandon partners. Which means that the concerns you may have had all along with your ex may have been warranted, and the signs of an Intimacy Gap you saw really were indicators of separation to come.
Which brings us to your questions and answers:
“Is our pattern unusual, and what do you know about the match between attachment styles and couples’ success?” and “Should I pick someone with my same style in the future?”
Kimberly, I don’t have stats on how unusual the Avoidant + Anxious/Avoidant pairing is, but it’s common enough that I regularly get letters from some very confused, hurt and angry folks who want more intimacy while their partner does his or her—but usually his—damndest to keep that Gap wide open.
The couples with the greatest odds of success are those where both mates have a Secure attachment style coming into the relationship—and as research on 144 young dating couples by Jerry Simpson showed, men and women alike would rather date someone with a Secure style even if they themselves aren’t Secure.
Which makes sense. Because in the two-Secure-people scenario, both partners are ready, willing and able to mutually trust, respond to, depend upon, and gradually open up to one another for lasting intimacy. And if you are Insecure but your partner is Secure, then the Secure partner is doing their best to respond appropriately, take troubles in stride, and make the relationship run smooth.
Although I’ve written elsewhere that finding a partner just like oneself tends to be ideal, that’s a No in this case. I wouldn’t advise you to find a person matching your own Anxious/Ambivalent style. Having two people who need very high levels of reassurance; two people likely to see problems where there aren’t any; two people who might see a failure to call at lunch as outright rejection; two people who might, just sometimes, be a bit like Human Cling-Wrap…well, it’s asking a lot of a partner and a relationship. And it’s volunteering for a ton of stress.
And stress is not our friend when it comes to building a life with someone else.
Above all, I’d recommend avoiding another relationship with someone of Avoidant style—especially because you are a woman. Women—even when Secure—have an evolved psychology that tells us to feel happy and calm in the presence of Ye Olde Willing & Able Provider & Protector. If a guy is running away from you, as an Avoidant man is, then how willing is he to commit? And how satisfying is that ever going to feel? Not very.
Indeed, in Simpson’s study, women were least happy with Avoidant men. And men—whose evolved psychology says to hold out for a woman who is high-status—tend to see Anxious/Ambivalent women as trouble; the insecurity can seem desperate. And longtime LoveScience readers know what comes after that: There’s never been a perfume called Desperation.
“Is there a way to change someone else? Could I have done something to keep my fiance?”
Kimberly, I don’t know the details of your breakup, but I doubt you could have kept your fiancé, at least not in a way that would have made him worth keeping.
First of all, your combination of styles, with neither of you being Secure, and with the male being the Avoidant one, is likely to generate continual problems. Your feeling that he was never giving enough was not likely to lessen; his feeling that he was being (I’m guessing) imprisoned or overwhelmed with emotional demands was going to escalate. Perpetually. Some couples find ways to Be Happy Anyway, but why sign on for a perpetual issue as thorny as that when other options abound?
Second, people vary on dimensions of avoidance (how much we seek or avoid intimacy and interdependence with others) and anxiety (how much we worry that another will care for us). So some have more intense Insecurity than others; and there are Avoidant people, and then there are AVOIDANT people. To the extent that your ex was very set on never trusting/depending on someone else, another person’s example and input was either going to be non-influential, or might have created push-back where the highly AVOIDANT person runs away screaming. Even a Secure person is no match for someone committed to not committing.
But let’s say your ex had been just a little bit Avoidant. And you had been Secure. Or even better, let’s say you were the Avoidant one (providing a hard-to-get, high-status feeling for the man pursuing you) and he was Secure (providing the pursuit cues women need so we can relax and Trust). In that case, I’d have said: Okay, let the Secure guy gradually win over the slightly Avoidant woman.
Ultimately, though, I suspect that in cases where a Secure partner creates the experiences of loving trustworthy safety that help an Insecure partner to change, the influence is unintentional. And it’s risky to spend a lot of time on a program of transforming another person, too. Changing ourselves is tough enough. Changing others is something that only works if the other signs up…and often, not even then.
Upshot? Instead of finding someone to change, find someone to stand by as you change yourself. Seek out a Secure mate and work on changing yourself to be open to his Security. You’ll be changing the one person you’ve got the best shot at—you—and you’ll be allowing someone else to help you do that. I was you—the Anxious/Ambivalent—and with efforts outlined in last week’s article, plus a Secure mate, I did change. Several of my clients have likewise become Secure. It can be done. I wish you all the best.
From Mocha’s Mom: —Goodwill Among The Insecure; And Is Attachment Style Related To Morality?—
Two things occur to me: (1) it must be incredibly hard to have goodwill in a marriage where one or both partners do not have a secure attachment style. Is it possible to build goodwill without that factor? What if both partners have the same non-secure style — does that enable them to have goodwill due to understanding each other?
(b) Does attachment style play a role in morality? Are people with one attachment style “gooder” than people with others?
Duana’s response:
Dear Mocha’s Mom,
Goodwill—holding our partner’s best intentions in mind and cutting them some slack even if they disappoint us, because we know they’re doing the best they can—probably is much harder to come by when both partners lack Secure attachment. For example, it’s tough to see how much of a break folks are going to give each other if one partner feels trapped (Avoidant) and the other feels rejected and unloved (Anxious/Ambivalent), or if both people feel trapped/rejected/unloved. Also, if neither person in the relationship is Secure, then we can expect a lot less goodwill just because people with non-Secure styles tend to see ill intentions and problems even where there are none, and tend to have a much harder time accepting what the partner offers as being Enough.
So having at least one Secure person in a union is a Very Good Thing. Having two is even better.
But morality? You’ve just totally stumped me. Whether Secure people are more moral might depend on how we define morality. If we equate morality with causing fewer problems in our relationships, graciously accepting what other people have to offer, responding appropriately to others’ needs, trusting easily where warranted and moving on where trust is unwise, and generally being dependable? Then yes, perhaps the Secure are more moral.
But researchers define morality as comprising two parts: self-control and empathy. To be moral, we have to be able to stop ourselves from doing harm even when we are sorely tempted, as when we are inclined to strangle someone in an argument but we do not; and we must be able to understand that other people feel as we do—they have the same wants, needs, and emotions we ourselves possess.
We learn self-control at our parents’ knees: “Yes, you can play with your friend after you hang up your coat.” “You can have snack time after you make your sandwich for tomorrow.” You can do this fun thing after you’ve done this less-fun thing.
And we can likewise learn empathy from early childhood training: “How would you feel if someone hit you?” “If you take Tommy’s toy, what do you think he will feel and do?” Other people have the same rights, needs, wants, and feelings that you do.
By that moral definition of empathy + self-control, I doubt if there is any one attachment style that is more moral than another.
According to the Big Cheese of moral reasoning, Lawrence Kohlberg, the most moral people are those who believe and behave in line with perceived Universal Rights even when the law or society disagrees (fascists, authoritatians, and/or totalitarians need not apply). For instance, in Hitler’s Germany there were those who chose to hide Jewish neighbors at great risk to their own lives. These people not only controlled impulsive (and rational) fears—they acted out of line with their society and laws at the time for a greater cause, the support of their neighbors’ Universal Right to remain alive.
That’s morality, whatever one’s attachment style. And although I can’t prove it, I’ll bet those who saved their Jewish neighbors had all the different attachment styles. Their morality sprang from their beliefs that humans are of value, that life is of value, and that they were to support those beliefs through action. Because it is Right.
Thanks as ever for stimulating thoughts and the time and energy you devote to sharing them for everyone’s benefit.
Cheers,
Duana
Do you have a question for Duana? Email her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com
All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., and LoveScience Media, 2012.
Psssst: Sharing this and all LoveScience articles is welcome and encouraged. Thank you!
Related LoveScience articles:
The article on which this Q&A was based: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/attachment-styles-overcoming-fear-embracing-intimacyat-last.html
Other articles at LoveScience that discuss attachment can be found at this link: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/tag/attachment-style
Why you should look for someone very similar to yourself: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/display/Search?moduleId=9130610&searchQuery=traits+for+a+mate
When Opposites attract: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/when-opposites-attract-happily-or-crabbily-ever-after.html
What if you have Perpetual Problems in your union? Here’s how to Be Happy Anyway: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/solving-your-unsolvable-problems-what-happy-couples-know.html
The author wishes to thank the following scientists and sources:
Susan Page, who while not being a social scientist, has a series of outstanding books the ideas of which are firmly supported by social science. Concepts such as goodwill, the Intimacy Gap, and the definition of intimacy are just starting points. Here’s one of my favorite of her books for singles who want to find a great lifemate: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0609809091/ref=cm_rev_all_1?n=283155
Jerry Simpson, whose research elucidated which attachment styles tend to work in couples, for men, and for women—for better and for worse.
Lawrence Kohlberg, whose research identified basic components of the different levels of morality, including the rare postconventional moral reasoners who do what is right because of a Universal Human Right—whether or not their laws or society agree with them.