Introduction
The origins of the attachment styles can be found in child psychology and child-parent relationship studies. John Bowlby, a famous British psychologist, described several concepts that defined attachment theory. First of all, Bowlby created the concept of secure attachment, when children are comforted by the attachment figure’s closeness (Sutton, 2019). Secondly, Bowlby drew a distinction between secure and insecure attachment, depending on the caregiver’s responsiveness and availability. Lastly, Bowlby claimed that the attachment system is active throughout the individual’s life (Sutton, 2019). Therefore, attachment, obtained during early childhood, affects one’s cognition and behavior. Initially, Bowlby (1973) associated his attachment theory with intimate relationships (as cited in Sutton, 2019). However, in the latter studies, Bowlby’s colleagues developed his work by describing additional attachment styles and translating the attachment theory into various adulthood spheres.
The works by Mary Ainsworth and her fellow authors are particularly influential in this regard. For instance, Ainsworth et al. (1978) described three typical infant attachment styles: secure, avoidant, and resistant (Sutton, 2019). Whereas secure infants gain confidence from their parents and are quickly comforted after separation, avoidant infants do not seek parents’ proximity and ignore them once reunited (Sutton, 2019). Lastly, resistant infants show ambivalence and anger towards parents upon reunion.
Mary Main, Ainsworth’s doctoral student, shaped the attachment theory and the attachment style concepts into a modern condition. There are four infant attachment styles in Main’s interpretation: secure, anxious-avoidant, anxious-resistant, and disorganized (Suri et al., 2019). Secure attachment style is characterized by confidence, stemming from the availability of attachment figure (Suri et al., 2019). Anxious-avoidant attachment is associated with passiveness and indifference, as these infants isolate themselves and resist help. On the contrary, the anxious-resistant style implies high distress levels and anger. Lastly, the disorganized attachment style manifests in aggression, disruptive behaviors, and social isolation (Suri et al., 2019).
Overall, one might ask whether to consider attachment styles another personality trait or something different. According to Suri et al. (2019), attachment styles follow more or less the same pattern in adults. Furthermore, The American Psychological Association (APA, 2022) defines personality trait as relatively stable, consistent, and enduring internal characteristic. Therefore, one can state that attachment styles belong to the personality trait category, as they remain a stable, relatively consistent behavioral influence throughout an individual’s life. Consequently, as a personality trait, attachment styles affect various spheres of adult human life — from interpersonal relationships to work and mental health. However, it is important to realize that the nature of attachment styles is currently debated. A growing body of research suggests that attachment styles change over time (Fraley, 2019). Nevertheless, a significant number of studies illustrate attachment styles as a consistent concept, which is fitting for a personality trait.
Manifestation of Different Attachment Styles in Various Spheres of Life
In continuation of the thesis statement, this section provides multiple examples of how attachment styles act as personality traits. The key feature of a personality trait is consistency — in this regard, multiple studies highlight how attachment styles produce consistent and measurable influence over adult humans’ behavior. This influence is noticeable in various spheres, as attachment styles affect interpersonal relationships, personality and mental health conditions, economic behavior, and professional life.
Interpersonal Relationships
Several studies have shown the correlation between specific attachment styles and exhibited behaviors in interpersonal communication. For example, Henschel et al. (2020) surveyed 168 adult students in the 18-26 age group and confirmed that individuals with anxious attachment styles had greater difficulties in emotion regulation than secure and avoidant individuals. However, the anxious group reported higher scores in empathic concern than the avoidant participants (Henschel et al., 2020, p. 3). In this regard, individuals with certain attachment style — anxious, appeared to be more empathetic; however, their empathy came at the cost of lowered emotion control. This stable pattern corresponds with the APA definition of personality trait and directly influences interpersonal communication.
Furthermore, attachment styles showed a significant effect on mentalization — the ability to attribute mental states to oneself and others’ behavior. According to Fuchs and Taubner (2019), mentalization is an important prerequisite for successful social interactions. Their study of the interplay between attachment style and attachment-related mood revealed that the individual with higher attachment anxiety achieved improvement in mentalization after the positive mood induction (Fuchs & Taubner, 2019). In contrast, participants with avoidant attachment styles did not show any positive change after the positive mood induction; however, their mentalization was also not harmed by the negative mood (Fuchs & Taubner, 2019). In this case, two groups of people with different attachment styles showed different yet enduring responses towards the intervention, which fits the description of personality traits.
Lastly, secure attachment style had a confirmed positive impact on Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) prevention and a more welcoming attitude towards homosexuals. According to Spencer et al. (2021), a secure attachment was significantly negatively related to IPV perpetration and victimization. On the contrary, anxious, avoidant, and disorganized attachments were significantly associated with physical IPV perpetration and victimization (Spencer et al., 2021). In regard to open-mindedness towards homosexual people, Metin-Orta and Metin-Camgöz (2020) found that secure attachment had a moderating effect on the relationship between openness to experience and attitudes to homosexuals. Whereas people with secure attachment style showed the same predisposition to homophobia, their attachment made them more likely to evaluate the experience and reconsider homophobic attitudes.
Overall, the existing research contributes to the standpoint that considers attachment style a personality trait. Individuals with varying attachments exhibit consistent and relatively stable internal behavioral patterns which affect their cognition and attitudes. Consequently, attachment styles serve as an important condition that directly affects the development and outcome of interpersonal communication. As such, the stability and nature of that influence allow to qualify it as a personality trait rather than cognitive bias or any other phenomenon.
Personality and Mental Health
In addition to the impact on interpersonal communications, attachment styles produce a lasting, consistent, and measurable influence on an individual’s personality and mental health. For example, Hairston et al. (2018) revealed that any insecure attachment styles in mothers were associated with bonding difficulties. Anxious and ambivalent attachments resulted in anxiety, whereas avoidant attachment style increased the feelings of rejection and anger in mothers (Hairston et al., 2018). Nickisch et al. (2020) studied the connection between the personality traits of the Dark Tetrad and anxious and avoidant attachments and found the positive associations between Machiavellianism, sadism, psychopathy, and both attachment styles. The meta-analysis by Carr et al. (2018) demonstrated that the prevalence of insecure attachment style was significantly higher in individuals with psychosis. Moreover, insecure attachment styles were associated with positive and negative symptom severity in both clinical and non-clinical groups (Carr et al., 2018). Lastly, attachment styles appeared to have a noticeable influence on life satisfaction and psychological resilience. According to Tepeli Temiz and Tari Comert (2018), university students with anxious and avoidant attachments had lowered levels of life satisfaction. In these cases, attachment styles had a consistently negative impact on an individual’s life.
On the contrary, a secure attachment style was found to be beneficial for an individual’s personality and mental health conditions. For instance, a survey of undergraduate students by Bender and Ingram (2018) confirmed that individuals with secure attachment style were more likely to adopt attitudes that promote self-efficacy and self-care. Consequently, self-efficacy and self-care partially mediated the relationship between attachment and psychological resilience (Bender & Ingram, 2018). In this regard, secure attachment style acted as a stabilizing personality trait with a consistent positive influence on students’ resilience.
Attachment styles have also produced an impact on individuals’ self-esteem and self-concept clarity. Kawamoto (2019) studied 1,042 university students in the 18—24 years age range and found a positive association between self-esteem and self-concept clarity only among the participants with low anxious attachment. In other words, the individuals with secure attachment were better able to perform the self-verification process (Kawamoto, 2019). Therefore, the creation of a stable secure attachment — the positive personality trait, appeared to be essential for promoting self-development in young adults.
Finally, attachment styles had a confirmed influence on the group treatment effectiveness. According to Marshall et al. (2018), the patients with low anxiety and high avoidance attachments had demonstrated better treatment retention rates and lower probability of relapse. In general, high avoidant participants had the best outcomes since their attachment buffered the effects of anxiety (Marshall et al., 2018). Overall, attachment styles appeared to have a stable and consistent manifestation in different circumstances related to human personality and mental health. Whereas secure attachment had usually been associated with more favorable influences, other attachment styles had also produced enduring and measurable, but mainly negative, impact. In this regard, both secure and all insecure attachments can be considered personality traits due to the consistency of their influence.
Professional Life and Economic Behaviors
The last group of research highlights the intersection of attachment styles, professional life, and economic behaviors, such as romantic consumption and tourist destination selection. Like in the cases of interpersonal communication, personality development, and mental health matters, attachment styles act as personality traits in these spheres of life. Their impact has a consistent and enduring internal nature that severely affects individuals’ preferences and exhibited behaviors.
For instance, leaderships attachment styles as perceived by the followers were found to be influencing idea generation and implementation depending on the corporate HR system. According to Černe et al. (2018), secure and anxious supervisors positively impacted idea generation in the commitment, or more flexible and creativity-based HR systems. However, the avoidant attachment style of the supervisor positively influenced idea generation in compliance HR systems (Černe et al., 2018). Unlike in interpersonal communication or mental health cases, secure attachment style was not found to be universally optimal in an HR environment. Regardless, the effect of attachment styles was consistent, which corresponds to the definition of a personality trait.
Secondly, attachment style in adulthood was positively related to workplace burnout. Vîrgă et al. (2019) studied the samples of 201 Dutch employees and 178 Romanian working students and found a positive relationship between anxious attachment and burnout. Consequently, attachment-related burnout resulted in deteriorating employee performance (Vîrgă et al., 2019). In this regard, a specific attachment style was confirmed to have a stable negative influence on professional life.
Several studies have touched on the subject of the connection between attachment styles and economic or marketing behaviors. For example, Mende et al. (2018) found that consumers with anxious attachments are more likely to engage in romantic, love-related consumption. On the other hand, avoidant attachment style was found to be a limiting factor for romantic consumption (Mende et al., 2018). In addition, products marketed via companionate love were more appealing to the consumers with secure attachment, whereas passionate love attracted avoidant ones (Mende et al., 2018). Furthermore, Japutra et al. (2018) found the connection between strong brand attachment and negative behaviors such as trash-talking and schadenfreude in consumers with high levels of attachment avoidance. Lastly, Japutra (2020) revealed that people with anxious attachment styles are more inclined to develop an attachment with a particular tourist destination. Overall, the influence of attachments on an individual’s professional life and economic behavior is consistent and internal in its nature. Therefore, the scholarly evidence contributes to the perception of attachment styles as personality traits.
Conclusion
Attachment styles, the concept of emotional behavior in relationships originating from the childhood experience related to the caregiver’s responsiveness and availability, can be considered a personality trait. In general, attachments develop during the early childhood and persist throughout an individual’s life, which results in stable and enduring behaviors in various spheres of life, similar to a personality trait. The consistent impact of attachment styles can be found in interpersonal communication, individual personality, mental health, professional life, and economic behaviors. Overall, secure attachment is usually associated with beneficial outcomes, whereas anxious, avoidant, or disorganized attachments routinely translate into different issues depending on the domain of life.
References
American Psychological Association. (2022). Personality trait. Web.
Bender, A., & Ingram, R. (2018). Connecting attachment style to resilience: Contributions of self-care and self-efficacy. Personality and Individual Differences, 130, 18-20. Web.
Carr, S. C., Hardy, A., & Fornells-Ambrojo, M. (2018). Relationship between attachment style and symptom severity across the psychosis spectrum: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 59, 145-158. Web.
Černe, M., Batistič, S., & Kenda, R. (2018). HR systems, attachment styles with leaders, and the creativity–innovation nexus. Human Resource Management Review, 28(3), 271-288. Web.
Fraley, R. C. (2019). Attachment in adulthood: Recent developments, emerging debates, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 401-422. Web.
Fuchs, N. F., & Taubner, S. (2019). Exploring the interplay of attachment style and attachment-related mood on short-term change in mentalization: A pilot study. Personality and Individual Differences, 144, 94-99. Web.
Hairston, I. S., Handelzalts, J. E., Assis, C., & Kovo, M. (2018). Postpartum bonding difficulties and adult attachment styles: the mediating role of postpartum depression and childbirth‐related PTSD. Infant Mental Health Journal, 39(2), 198-208. Web.
Henschel, S., Nandrino, J. L., & Doba, K. (2020). Emotion regulation and empathic abilities in young adults: The role of attachment styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 156, 109763. Web.
Japutra, A., Ekinci, Y., & Simkin, L. (2018). Positive and negative behaviours resulting from brand attachment: The moderating effects of attachment styles. European Journal of Marketing, 52(5/6), 1185-1202. Web.
Japutra, A. (2020). The relations among attachment styles, destination attachment and destination satisfaction. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(3), 270-275. Web.
Kawamoto, T. (2020). The moderating role of attachment style on the relationship between self-concept clarity and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 152, 109604. Web.
Marshall, S. W., Albery, I. P., & Frings, D. (2018). Who stays in addiction treatment groups? Anxiety and avoidant attachment styles predict treatment retention and relapse. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 25(4), 525-531. Web.
Mende, M., Scott, M. L., Garvey, A. M., & Bolton, L. E. (2019). The marketing of love: how attachment styles affect romantic consumption journeys. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(2), 255-273. Web.
Metin-Orta, I., & Metin-Camgöz, S. (2020). Attachment style, openness to experience, and social contact as predictors of attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 67(4), 528-553. Web.
Nickisch, A., Palazova, M., & Ziegler, M. (2020). Dark personalities–dark relationships? An investigation of the relation between the Dark Tetrad and attachment styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 167, 110227. Web.
Spencer, C. M., Keilholtz, B. M., & Stith, S. M. (2021). The association between attachment styles and physical intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization: A meta‐analysis. Family Process, 60(1), 270-284. Web.
Suri, S., Garg, S., & Tholia, G. (2019). Attachment style, perceived social support and loneliness among college students. International Journal of Innovative Studies in Sociology and Humanities, 4(5).
Sutton, T. E. (2019). Review of attachment theory: Familial predictors, continuity and change, and intrapersonal and relational outcomes. Marriage & Family Review, 55(1), 1-22. Web.
Tepeli Temiz, Z., & Tarı Comert, I. (2018). The relationship between life satisfaction, attachment styles and psychological resilience in university students. Dusunen Adam The Journal of Psychiatry & Neurological Sciences, 31(3), Web.
Vîrgă, D., Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., van Beek, I., & Sulea, C. (2019). Attachment styles and employee performance: The mediating role of burnout. The Journal of Psychology, 153(4), 383-401. Web.