The Psychology of Attachment - A Guide for Parents, Educators, Employers, and Leaders

Contents:

Introduction

1.  The Origins of Attachment Theory – John Bowlby

2. Mary Ainsworth's Strange Situation: An Empirical Test of Bowlby's Theory

3. Advancing Ainsworth's Attachment Theoretical Framework

4. Bowlby's Maternal Deprivation Theory and the Development of Attachment Disorder

5. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Attachment

6. Manifestations of Attachment in School and Classroom Settings

7. Research on Teacher-Student Attachment Relationships

8. Applying Attachment Theory in Classroom Practice

9. A Whole School Approach to Attachment-Informed Practice

10. The Evolution of Adult Attachment Research

11. Understanding Your Team: Insights from Adult Attachment Research

12. Closing Personal Reflections

Introduction

Attachment theory is one of the most fascinating aspects of psychology, yet it is rarely talked about inside schools outside of psychology lessons. It is even rarer to hear it discussed in terms of teaching and leadership. Given that schools and work are deeply relational places, this surprises me. We talk about relationships and building them with students and their families, or with our team mates at work, and the importance of building a culture of belonging, yet we often neglect to talk about the very first time we felt we belonged and how that has shaped who we are today. An understanding of attachment theory helps us to see who we are, what matters to us, and how to form meaningful connections with others. Hopefully, this article will give you the research to understand attachment at a deeper level, and some practical strategies to help your children, students, and team mates at work.

For clarity, attachment is widely accepted as:

‘…a deep and enduring affectionate bond that connects one person to another across time and space’ (Ainsworth 1973; Bowlby 1969).

Whilst aspects of dependency and dependent behaviours can manifest in some types of attachment, the two terms are not synonymous. Attachment is a vast all-encompassing concept and should be interpreted as a key part of biological, cognitive and socio-emotional survival and wellbeing. To understand it, we must remain open-minded and non-judgemental (but still curious and constructively critical), because the purpose of research in this area is to understand the human condition and development. We need to understand it, not just because we are educators, but because we are parents, carers, colleagues, and above all, we are human.

This article will branch out into different parts, allowing you to navigate to the sections that you might find to be of interest, or are specific to your role. It is a lengthy article, best described as a labour of love. It might be one of the most painful things I will ever write. I have taught attachment for 7 years, but for the best part of this year, I have researched it on a more personal level and discovered a lot of things about myself and about the people I know and love. I hope it is useful, whether that be in understanding parts of yourself, your children, your students, or your team.

1.      The Origins of Attachment Theory – John Bowlby

Attachment theory first came to the global fore when John Bowlby was commissioned by the WHO to explore the impact of maternal deprivation. This was controversially defined by Bowlby as

‘… the emotional and intellectual damage that can result when a child is deprived of a continuous, warm, and loving relationship with their mother (or primary caregiver)...’ (Bowlby 1951)

Bowlby’s WHO report, Maternal Care and Mental Health (1951), laid the foundations for his later attachment theory, first formally articulated in 1958, and developed further in 1969. His core premise was that attachment was an innate biological process that promotes survival by ensuring proximity between the infant and caregiver. From a physiological perspective, human infants are surprisingly poorly equipped to survive their formative years. When we take a step back and compare ourselves to other species and their offspring, it is a little shocking to consider that our infants cannot support their own bodies. However, our superiority in the food-chain is largely linked to our cognitive development (the cerebral cortex), and the other parts of the human body have yet to catch up to our cognitive prowess. Due to our physical limitations, Bowlby argued that attachment serves as an essential survival mechanism. If an infant can establish attachment to a caregiver that responds effectively to its needs, the chances of survival are greatly increased, because it cannot meet its needs otherwise.

Bowlby later refined his theory, now referred to as Monotropic Theory (mono= one, tropic= moving towards).

Bowlby proposed that infants form a primary attachment relationship, usually with their biological mother, although contemporary research recognises that children typically form multiple meaningful attachments. Given that this theory was published in 1969, one can understand the social context and subsequent gender bias behind this assumption (it has since been revised). Bowlby proposed that in order to form attachment with our primary caregivers, infants elicit social releasers, such as crying and the rooting reflex, to signal to our carers that we have needs that need to be satisfied in order to ensure survival. Bowlby believed that the caregivers that responded most effectively to those social releasers during the critical period (0-3 years) developed deeper and more secure attachment bonds with their infants. If, however, this bond was not securely established in this period, the infant would suffer from maternal deprivation (and its associated negative consequences). He surmised that whatever bond/s were formed (or not) in this time, which would create an internal working model for the infant; a mental framework of expectations of what attachment should look like. This would often play out in what Bowlby termed his continuity hypothesis, that a child (later adult) would then seek to replicate this style of attachment in their future relationships because of familiarity of social patterns, be they secure or not.

2.      Mary Ainsworth's Strange Situation: An Empirical Test of Bowlby's Theory

Mary Ainsworth was one of the first psychologists to attempt to test John Bowlby’s theory of attachment. Ainsworth devised a study ‘The Strange Situation Procedure’ (often referenced as The Strange Situation), in which 106 middle-class American infants aged 12-18 months (and their mothers- their primary caregivers) were placed into novel situations (hence the term strange situation) and the infants’ behaviours were observed. Of the 8 different situations/structured stages that the infants were placed into (some with a stranger, some with their mother, sometimes a pairing of both adults or neither at all), the infants’ behaviours were recorded through a one-way mirror. This was coded data, whereby she logged patterns of behaviour across the below specific behavioural constructs, to understand the coherence of attachment, without making her work a judgement on parenting. She did not refer to the below as specific ‘measurements’ in isolation, but more a tool of understanding behaviours across episodes.

Behavioural constructs:

(a) Secure Base Behaviour (Exploration of environment)

(b) Separation Behaviour / Separation Protest

(c) Reunion Behaviour (Primary Classification Criterion- how the child responded when the mother re-entered the room after a period of absence).

Reunion behaviour was the most diagnostically important measure in Ainsworth’s system.

(d) Proximity‑Seeking and Contact‑Maintaining (with the mother)

(e) Avoidance (of the mother)

(f) Resistance / Anger (towards the mother)

(g) Stranger Anxiety (towards an unfamiliar adult)

Findings and Conclusions

From her findings, Ainsworth concluded that there were 3 attachment styles. These styles and their associated behaviours can be seen in the table below:

Behaviour	Secure (B)	Insecure‑Avoidant (A)	Insecure‑Ambivalent / Resistant (C)
Use of caregiver as secure base	Actively explores; regularly checks back visually or physically	Explores freely but does not use caregiver as base	Little exploration; remains close or clings
Reaction to separation	Distressed by separation	Little overt distress	Intense distress
Response to stranger	Wary or distressed when alone with stranger	Little differentiation between stranger and caregiver	Strong fear of stranger
Behaviour on reunion	Seeks contact, is comforted, returns to play	Avoids or ignores caregiver	Seeks contact but resists comforting
Proximity‑ seeking	High and appropriate	Low	High but ineffective
Avoidance	Low	High	Low
Resistance	Low	Low	High (anger, pushing away)

(adapted directly from Ainsworth et al., 1978, Results section)

Ainsworth concluded that the above attachment styles vary in terms of security and behaviour, but that the ‘Secure- Type B’ style was optimal. The mother’s sensitivity and responsiveness is key to determining what attachment style may manifest in an infant:

• Secure → caregiver is responsive and consistent

• Avoidant → caregiver is rejecting or unresponsive

• Resistant → caregiver is inconsistent

3.      Advancing Ainsworth's Attachment Theoretical Framework

Mary Main and Judith Solomon later re-analysed the video recordings of numerous ‘Strange Situation’ studies (including that of Mary Ainsworth) and concluded that not all the infants’ behaviours were consistent to the attachment style that Ainsworth would label them with. Approximately 15% of the infants were inconsistent, in that they could not clearly be labelled as Type A, B or C. Main and Solomon theorised that a 4^th attachment style should be considered, a Type D, namely ‘Disorganised’ attachment.

“Disorganised attachment is a type of attachment in which the infant shows inconsistent, contradictory, or disoriented behaviours toward the caregiver, often appearing confused or fearful, indicating a lack of a coherent attachment strategy” (Main & Solomon 1986).

Further work has been done by numerous psychologists and research teams to ascertain the causes of disorganized attachment. With Main and Hesse (1990) linking it to frightening or frightened behaviours of the caregiver, creating an unpredictable environment and subsequent attachment.

Whilst the Strange Situation has been replicated many times in America and the UK, Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) wanted to find out if Ainsworth’s 3 attachment types are universal across cultures or vary between countries. In their meta-analysis they analysed 32 studies including over 2000 infants from 8 different countries, and found secure attachment was the most common across cultures, supporting the theory of universality, although the distribution of insecure types varied depending on cultural child-rearing practices.

4.      Bowlby's Maternal Deprivation Theory and the Development of Attachment Disorder

It is widely accepted that there are four attachment styles; however, this classification has been criticised for cultural bias in samples and for reflecting Western assumptions about caregiving roles, particularly the emphasis on the mother as the primary attachment figure, causing its universality to be questioned. In line with these 4 attachment styles, it is also widely accepted that there are two clinically recognised attachment disorders, which can be diagnosed using the DSM-V and the ICD-11 (at the time of writing).

Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) strongly links to Bowlby’s concept of deprivation (however, not just maternal). This occurs when an infant is neglected or receives inconsistent care and therefore fails to form a stable and secure attachment. Reactive Attachment Disorder has significant long-term effects on a child’s emotional, social, and psychological development. Children with RAD often demonstrate withdrawal behaviours, choosing solitude and isolation. They commonly find it challenging to form relationships because they can be unresponsive to others, struggle to express or experience positive emotions and can appear to be emotionally detached from others. The result of these poor social relationships can manifest in different ways, with some children totally shutting down and becoming passive, whilst others may become irritable or aggressive.

In addition, the lack of early attachment and stimulation can negatively affect cognitive development, sometimes resulting in developmental delays or lower intellectual functioning, particularly when the child has been raised in a traumatic and abusive environment. The later impact on mental health can be profound and links to many different pathologies.

Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder (DSED), formerly known as disinhibited attachment disorder, is characterised by an indiscriminate over-familiarity with others, regardless of whether the child knows the adult or not. Children with DSED do not show a typical preference for a primary caregiver and may readily approach and interact with strangers without hesitation, there is a distinct lack of stranger anxiety. They often seek that their physical, psychological, and emotional needs be met by anyone, regardless of association. This is due to severe deprivation, which is more often found in care institutions such as orphanages, where the child does not have the opportunity to form a primary caregiver attachment due to the multitude of caregivers that the child will encounter on a regular basis. As a result, the child fails to develop normal social boundaries, and will form numerous superficial, non-selective connections. In the long term, DSED can lead to difficulties in forming deep and trusting relationships. It also means that these children are more vulnerable than others because of their lack of stranger anxiety and poor social judgement.

5.      The Cognitive Neuroscience of Attachment

Siegel (2020) argues that early attachment experiences play a central role in shaping neural development and the capacity for emotional regulation. Attachment experiences shape behaviour because they affect the developing brain, nervous system, and related stress-response systems (Siegel 2020).Brain development, particularly within the prefrontal cortex, continues into the mid-twenties and, as a result, remains highly plastic throughout childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood (Arain et al. 2013). Early caregiving experiences help organise the amygdala (the brain's threat detector), the prefrontal cortex (responsible for reasoning and self-regulation), the hippocampus (involved in memory formation), and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, which regulates the body's stress response and the release of cortisol (Siegel 2020; Gunnar & Quevedo 2007). Positive and attuned relationships also stimulate the release of oxytocin, often referred to as the "bonding hormone", which promotes feelings of trust, connection, and safety (Cozolino 2014; Siegel 2020). The behaviours we observe in our students, and in ourselves as adults, are strongly influenced by the brain's fundamental drive for survival, connection, and wellbeing (Siegel 2020). Once we understand this, our interpretation of attachment, and indeed of human behaviour more broadly, begins to change.

6.      Manifestations of Attachment in School and Classroom Settings

It is important to note that Ainsworth claimed that these early attachment styles were not personality traits and they could either be maintained or modified throughout childhood dependent on the quality of care that a child received. So, whilst these styles are not fixed (Thompson 2008), and should not be treated as diagnostic labels we can attribute based on our own observational data; the students sat in our classes, according to Ainsworth at least, will broadly fit into these attachment styles. Whilst psychological thinking has moved away from these styles being set categories that we can use to label people, and towards more of a spectrum of demonstrable behaviours, for ease, I have created a table of typical behaviours for each attachment style, linking to different ages. However, when reading the below, we must be mindful that behaviours associated with attachment can also arise from trauma, SEND, neurodiversity, mental health difficulties, cultural factors, temperament, or life experiences. Attachment theory should therefore be used as a framework for understanding behaviour, rather than a diagnostic tool. 

Attachment Style	Cognitive Neuroscience	Age-Related Typical Behaviours
Secure Type B	Research suggests effective functional regulation between the prefrontal cortex and amygdala allowing them to regulate emotions effectively. Research suggests their stress-response system is less likely to remain activated for prolonged periods, and healthy levels of oxytocin support trusting relationships.	Early Years (3-5)	Primary (5-11)	Secondary (11-18)
		Separates from caregivers with manageable distress; explores confidently;  accepts comfort from trusted adults;  returns to learning after setbacks	Asks for help appropriately; tolerates mistakes and feedback; develops positive friendships; recovers from disappointment relatively quickly	Demonstrates independence while maintaining positive relationships with staff; seeks support when needed; shows resilience during exams and transitions; balances peer influence with adult guidance
		Potential Strengths Resilience, confidence, social competence
		Teacher Might Notice Willingness to attempt challenging tasks;  appropriate help-seeking; good recovery after mistakes or setbacks; positive relationships with peers and adults; ability to work independently and collaboratively; generally regulated emotional responses; confidence during transitions; accepts praise and constructive feedback
Attachment Style	Cognitive Neuroscience	Age-Related Typical Behaviours
Insecure - Resistant (Ambivalent/Anxious) Type C	Research suggests a highly reactive amygdala, making them highly sensitive to perceived threats, rejection, or criticism. Research suggests their HPA axis can become more easily activated, leading to increased production of cortisol, the body's primary stress hormone. As a result, they may remain hypervigilant to signs that support could be withdrawn.	Early Years (3-5)	Primary (5-11)	Secondary (11-18)
		Clings to adults; struggles with transitions; frequently seeks reassurance; becomes distressed when attention is directed elsewhere	Constantly checks in with the teacher;  worries excessively about getting things wrong; overreacts to correction; may struggle with peer relationships due to fear of rejection	Seeks frequent teacher approval;  highly sensitive to criticism and grades;  experiences friendship anxieties;  may show heightened stress around assessments and attendance
		Potential Strengths Empathy, relationship awareness, sensitivity to others
		Teacher Might Notice Frequent reassurance-seeking; repeated checking that work is correct; reluctance to start tasks independently;  heightened sensitivity to criticism; becoming upset by minor changes to routine; hovering near adults; frequent requests for help even when capable; emotional reactions that seem disproportionate to the situation;  friendship difficulties linked to fear of rejection; perfectionistic tendencies
Attachment Style	Cognitive Neuroscience	Age-Related Typical Behaviours
Insecure- Avoidant Type A	Research suggests increased activation of the prefrontal cortex, which helps inhibit emotional expression. Research suggests the amygdala and HPA axis respond to stress. Consequently, avoidantly attached children can show elevated levels of cortisol (the body's primary stress hormone) and other physiological signs of distress despite appearing composed. The oxytocin system, which supports social bonding and trust, may also be less readily activated during times of stress.	Early Years (3-5)	Primary (5-11)	Secondary (11-18)
		Appears unusually independent; rarely seeks comfort when upset; prefers solitary play;  seems to be coping even when distressed	Declines help despite difficulties;  appears emotionally detached; avoids discussing feelings; keeps adults at a distance	Presents as highly self-sufficient; reluctant to engage with pastoral support;  under-reports difficulties; may appear disengaged, indifferent, or apathetic
		Potential Strengths Independence, self-reliance, persistence
		Teacher Might Notice Refusing help despite obvious difficulty; appearing unaffected by setbacks while work quality declines;  reluctance to talk about emotions;  limited eye contact or engagement with adults;  preferring to work alone; withdrawing from classroom discussions;  avoiding pastoral support; appearing aloof, detached, or "too independent"; rarely seeking comfort when distressed; saying "I'm fine" when clearly struggling
Attachment Style	Cognitive Neuroscience	Age-Related Typical Behaviours
Disorganized Type D	Research suggests chronic activation of the amygdala, the brain's alarm system, and dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, which controls the release of stress hormones such as cortisol. Nervous system remains on high alert, constantly scanning for potential threats. At the same time, the prefrontal cortex, responsible for emotional regulation, decision-making, and impulse control, may struggle to effectively regulate these intense emotional responses.	Early Years (3-5)	Primary (5-11)	Secondary (11-18)
		Shows contradictory behaviour towards adults; seeks comfort then rejects it;  may appear fearful, aggressive, or confused; struggles to self-regulate	Displays unpredictable reactions; may be controlling or oppositional; experiences emotional outbursts; finds it difficult to trust adults	Alternates between dependence and rejection of support;  demonstrates significant emotional dysregulation; struggles with relationships; may experience attendance, behaviour, or mental health difficulties
		Potential Strengths Creativity, vigilance, adaptability in changing environments
		Teacher Might Notice Fluctuating between seeking support and rejecting it; unpredictable emotional responses;  sudden angry or defensive reactions; difficulty trusting adults; controlling or oppositional behaviours; emotional outbursts that appear unrelated to the immediate trigger; hypervigilance to perceived threats; rapid mood changes; problems with transitions; difficulties maintaining friendships; inconsistent engagement with learning; frequent dysregulation following conflict or correction

7.      Research on Teacher-Student Attachment Relationships

There is a growing body of research focusing on attachment styles in the classroom and how they impact children academically as well as socio-emotionally, both inside and outside of school. This research consistently shows that affective and dyadic relationships between teachers and individual children shape children's development. One of the most prominent pieces of research was a meta-analysis conducted by Spilt and Koomen (2022). By bringing together three decades of research, Spilt and Koomen accepted five tenets of attachment theory (referenced in the earlier sections of my article) which led both authors to explore five prominent themes which their analysis hinged on:

(1)   conceptualization and assessment, (2) secure base and autonomous exploration, (3) safe haven and self-regulation, (4) attachment history and relationship (dis)continuity, and (5) teacher sensitivity and mentalization (Spilt and Koomen 2022).

Proposed model for the study of teacher-child relationships (TCR) from an attachment perspective. *Shaping more abstract and generalized internal working models (IWMs) of the self and others.

Figure 1. Proposed model for the study of teacher-child relationships from an attachment perspective. Reprinted from Spilt and Koomen (2022).

In their review, Spilt and Koomen noted how these 5 themes were focused on in research at different times over the past 30 years. Early attachment-based research on teacher–student relationships was largely conducted in preschool and primary settings because attachment theory was originally developed to explain young children's relationships with caregivers. It was also assumed that young children required more emotional security than adolescents, that teacher-student relationships were more intensive in early years, as well as the methodological convenience of observational measures and teacher reporting instruments which were only later adapted to be suitable for use in secondary settings. More recent research has, thankfully, also focused older years school-based settings and many assumptions around adolescent emotional needs has shifted.

Spilt and Koomen’s findings tie in to these five core themes:

1. Teachers can act as a "secure base"

Linking to Ainsworth’s work on secure base behaviour in infants, this can be applied, albeit less literally, to all children regardless of age. When pupils perceive a teacher as dependable, supportive, and responsive, they are more willing to explore, participate, take academic risks, and engage in learning.

2. Teachers can serve as a "safe haven"

Children often seek comfort, reassurance, and emotional support from teachers that they trust, particularly during periods of stress or discomfort. They can return to these teachers in times of emotional need, be comforted, and feel confident to continue to explore their world and learn.

3. Relationship quality affects educational outcomes

The review highlights evidence linking positive teacher–student relationships with better academic achievement, higher levels of engagement, improved emotional wellbeing, greater social competence, reduced behavioural difficulties and enhanced school adjustment.

4. Early attachment experiences matter, but schools can have an influence

Children do have internal working models of relationships from early caregivers, and these can present in behaviours at school. However, the review found evidence that new relationships with teachers can modify children's expectations about adults and relationships over time and potentially change their internal working models.

5. Teacher sensitivity is crucial

Teachers who are emotionally attuned, reflective, and responsive tend to develop stronger relationships with pupils. However, Split and Koomen did highlight the need for more research into this theme, as there are clear research gaps in this area.

8.      Applying Attachment Theory in Classroom Practice

Hopefully, this article has thus far shed some light on attachment styles on the young people in our care, be they our students or our own children. Whilst it is not our role to diagnose or label, it can be helpful in understanding their thought processes, biology, and social-emotional behaviours. If we really understand our children at this core, human level, empathy deepens, and we can provide the kind of care in our classroom that all children deserve, but alas, not all have received.

Securely Attached (Type B) Students

Suggestion 1: Provide opportunities for autonomy, leadership, and risk-taking

• Give responsibility roles (peer mentors, group leadership, house ambassadors)

• Use independent and inquiry-based learning

•    Encourage self-directed problem-solving before intervening.

•      Reward effort, curiosity, and persistence.

•      Gradually reduce scaffolding.

•    Ask students to try three strategies before seeking help (C3B4Me)

• Use self-assessment rubrics.

Evidence behind this suggestion: Students with this attachment style may use their teacher as a secure base, confident enough to explore new environments, knowledge, and skills. They feel safe enough to explore but know when to return and check-in with their teacher and ask for support. These students will often view failure as a chance to learn and grow, so they likely embrace the chance to work out for themselves (and show you!), what they can do initially, without you providing scaffolds. However, these students do still have a comfort zone, it is our job to support them to leave it, and praise (and scaffolds) are the key ways of doing this. Providing clear leadership opportunities is also essential, not just for the students who will assume them, but for other students to identify them as peer role models, who may then imitate, and later internalize, their behaviours. This suggestion hinges strongly on Bandura’s 1977 and 1986 work on social learning theory.

Suggestion 2: Maintain warmth while preserving challenge

• Give specific developmental feedback.

• Hold high expectations alongside emotional support.

  
  

Evidence behind this suggestion: Students with this attachment style thrive on the perfect balance of warmth and high challenge. It can be easy to leave these students to work independently, or successfully lead a peer group, as they appear confident in a variety of social settings, but the dangers here are two-fold: we are not checking in enough emotionally or we are not challenging them enough with the work we are providing. In a busy classroom, we must be mindful of the trap of neglecting focus on these students because they are often high prior attainers. They cannot maintain a secure attachment style if their attachment figure/teacher assumes they themselves are rarely needed, and that a student will ‘fly’ on their own, academically, or emotionally. Thompson (2008) argues that attachment styles are not fixed, and our role of emotional and academic leaders will continue to shape securely attached students.

Suggestion 3:  Promote Reflective Thinking and Metacognition

• Learning journals.

• Metacognitive questioning.

•   Reflection on successes and setbacks.

• Goal-setting conversations (SMART targets)

  
  

Evidence behind this suggestion: Students with this attachment style may be confident in self-reflection, but this does need to be scaffolded. Whilst ‘WWW’ and ‘EBI’ can be effective in some situations, I would argue that it is too easy for students to write vague reflections, e.g. ‘I need to speak more when I present to the class’ and these arguably vague reflections do not necessarily create the foundations for effective SMART targets. Assessment matrices are useful, but it might be more interesting to observe how students self-assess/evaluate first (as suggested above) before designing these on their behalf. Metacognitive questioning is essential for all, but securely attached students may be confident in sharing their thought processes with others, as they do not fear rejection as much as students with other attachment styles. Asking these students to explain their methodology or rationale behind what they are doing, gives them the tools to deepen their own understanding and provides a perfect opportunity for a teacher to provide intermittent challenges (whilst not disrupting their cognitive flow).

Suggestion 4: Provide opportunities for developing emotional literacy

•   Discuss emotional responses to challenge.

• Use emotion vocabulary.

• Explore perspectives in texts and historical events.

•   Model emotional awareness.

  
  

Evidence behind this suggestion: Students with this attachment style may be the most emotionally secure and articulate in comparison to students with other attachment styles. However, they are still young people navigating novel situations and facing increasing social pressures, and we cannot afford to assume they are always successful at emotional self-regulation. Adolescence, as we know, is a particularly challenging time for young people, and despite being securely attached, these students may still experience times of emotional distress and uncertainty, understanding and communicating their thoughts and feelings. We often talk about emotions being ‘feelings,’ they are, but they are a result of cognitive and biological responses to stimuli. It can be easy to write behaviours off as mere ‘teenage angst’ or temporary ‘hormones’ and assume that these students are going through phases that do not require support, because they typically self-regulate and express themselves quite well. We do still need to co-regulate with these students on occasion and expect puberty to disrupt some of their typical regulation methods.

Insecure- Avoidant Attachment – Type A

Suggestion 1: Offer support without forcing proximity

• Use brief, non-intrusive check-ins.

• Offer help privately (co-devise a communication system with the student for them to use to signal they need support).

• Avoid repeatedly asking students to disclose feelings.

  
  

Evidence behind this suggestion: Students with this attachment style may minimise help-seeking behaviours. Many dislike the discomfort of direct communication as it is perceived as pressure, which can result in a number of behavioural responses, few of which aid the student in effective communication. It is always OK to ask a student directly how they are feeling and if they need support, but we must be mindful that students with this attachment style may fear being seen as inadequate or in need of others. The best advice I can offer here is to devise a communication system with the students (and their families/pastoral support teams) that allows the student to communicate in a way that is safe for them. It may be coloured cards, or gestures that discreetly signal a need, but when designing these systems, it is often what we should not do/say that needs to be explored first. What words/language might be perceived as ‘too direct’ by the student? What spatial proximity is uncomfortable for them? Once these communication systems are established, there will still be times when a student with this attachment style still retreats or withdraws. Let them. If you apply pressure, it could lead to impulsive outbursts or shutdowns which damage the relationship you have spent months building with that young person.

Suggestion 2: Build trust through consistency rather than emotional demands

• Follow through on promises.

• Be predictable about routines and consequences.

• Notice strengths without demanding emotional reciprocity.

  
  

Evidence behind this suggestion: Students with this attachment style often expect adults to be unavailable, because they were not consistently available when they needed it most during infancy. Students with an insecure-avoidant attachment style benefit from support that is consistently and routinely available, because this creates predictability which fosters a sense of emotional safety. These young people need to see your availability every time they enter the classroom, and classroom routines are one of the ways of laying these foundations. Once the routines are established and maintained, students then feel they are able to predict your availability in any given interaction, e.g. They know that if they answer when their name has been called during a cold-call activity, that you will be positively available to listen to their answer. Each interaction with a young person is telling them what your availability (support) is like. It must be noted that even in interactions where a teacher is holding a firm boundary with a student (e.g., reminding them of no-calling out in class), a consistent response that is kind but holds to the boundary does still signal availability, but it reinforces the parameters of that availability which maintains consistency.

Suggestion 3: Do not interpret withdrawal as defiance

• Distinguish emotional distancing from disengagement.

• Continue offering support even if rejected initially.

  
  

Evidence behind this suggestion: Students with this attachment style may withdraw in uncomfortable or distressing situations, particularly when they feel pressured. Understanding withdrawal as a protective strategy rather than opposition is key to understanding the behaviours of students with this attachment style. Negatively judging or sanctioning a student for withdrawal rarely results in positive relational outcomes because you are indirectly making them feel unsafe. If a student is withdrawing or shutting down, it is often not to anger you, it is self-protection. This coping strategy is often the result of not trusting the attachment figure to be present and emotionally available, so to avoid the risk of rejection, they self-preserve by not articulating their emotions. It must be noted that it is always supportive to ask the direct question ‘how are you feeling?’ to offer the chance for emotional engagement, but it cannot be pressed at that time if a student is not reciprocating. Parallel relationship building is often more effective than direct questioning, and this comes from building relationships with students outside of lessons, commenting on shared interests and work instead of leading with direct emotional probing.

Suggestion 4: Keep Showing Up After Rejection, Offer Choices of Support and Use Relational Language

• Offer support and accept the initial rejection without judgement

• Tell the student you will return within a certain time and honour this promise

• Offer two or three support options rather than directing the student toward one.

• Reassure the student using relational language

• Encourage decision-making while remaining available.

  
  

Evidence behind this suggestion: Students with this attachment style have been socialized to expect inconsistency and that their attachment figure will not be available each time they are needed, so they have learned to suppress their own needs by being self-reliant and reject support. Whilst students with this attachment style may, at times, reject support, it is our role to respect their initial rejection, be patient and provide space, but ultimately, return. Return is essential. When a student rejects support, respect the initial rejection, but promise to return at a set time. Stick to that promise. Upon return, it is helpful to offer choices, so that the student does not feel pressured into accepting one option, and use relational language that is warm e.g. "Have a go first. If you get stuck, we'll figure it out together." The promise and realization of return, and some elements of student autonomy are pivotal in that student building trust with you. Whatever you do, please always return, you may be the only person in their life that consistently does so and the impact of showing up for them is immeasurable.

Insecure-Resistant (Anxious/Ambivalent) Attachment - Type C

Suggestion 1: Use predictable routines and responses

• Establish consistent routines for each classroom interaction/activity.

• Give advance warning of changes.

• Use consistent expectations across situations.

  
  

Evidence behind this suggestion: Students with this attachment style are particularly sensitive to uncertainty and perceived rejection because the care they experienced in their early years was characterized by unpredictability of caregiver availability. This attachment style is similar to Type A- Insecure Avoidant for this reason, but the behavioural responses are the opposite. For children with an insecure-resistant attachment style, they routinely seek closeness and reassurance (opposite of avoidance) but struggle to feel reassured when it is provided. In Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation Procedure’ these infants were the ones that experienced high separation anxiety when their mothers left the room, but upon return of their mothers, the infants actively sought comfort (some with outstretched arms) but were then resistant to being soothed or comforted. They then remained close to their mothers and rarely returned to secure-based exploratory behaviours. In our classrooms, it is key that we create a climate of consistency to proactively prevent distress, and to signal that we, as attachment figures, are available and will not surprise them with rejection. Consistent routines and clear parameters for engagement allow these students to predict the consequences to their choices/behaviours, which goes a long way to alleviate the anxiety of potential perceived rejection. It must be noted that when we consider rejection, due to their hyper-vigilance, these students will likely scan for any sign of potential rejection, and that can range from low-level rejection (not being greeted at the door) to overt rejection (exclusion from the classroom). For those who do not identify with this attachment style, it can be hard to understand how not being greeted at a door can have such a significant impact on a young person, how they could possibly be seen as a rejection, but it can be a type of confirmation bias ‘I have always felt rejected, and I expect this to be the case with my teachers’ thus the student may interpret even ambiguous interactions as a form of rejection.

Suggestion 2: Provide reassurance that is structured rather than unlimited

• Set planned check-in times.

• Use phrases such as: “I'll come back and check your progress in five minutes."

  
  

Evidence behind this suggestion: Students with this attachment style benefit most from structured, consistent availability, rather than constant reassurance. The anxiety arises from a lack of predictability and ambiguity, so if clarity is provided with clear boundaries, students know what the consequences of their actions will be in any given situation. However, it is key that these boundaries are adhered to. It is kind to set and respect these boundaries because allowing for constant student-teacher availability unintentionally reinforces dependency. The teacher must be warm and consistent, but hold the boundaries, to allow the child to know that their teacher is certain, but not their only source of certainty. In simpler terms, over time, they learn to believe “My teacher is available if I need them, and I can also cope on my own.” But this is a gradual learned response, which is a result of interactional consistency and boundaries, and it cannot be rushed. Teachers must tread the fine line of always being warm, offering support when the student needs it, but building self-confidence in the student over time.

Suggestion 3: Explicitly teach self-regulation skills

• Breathing strategies.

• Self-monitoring checklists.

• Emotional literacy activities.

  
  

Evidence behind this suggestion: Students with this attachment style may find it hard to self-regulate in stressful situations. From a developmental perspective, infants rely on external regulation (caregiver soothes distress with feeding/rocking etc.). As they move into childhood, a child is then taught co-regulation where the child becomes more of an active participant (e.g., adult models deep breathing with the child that then imitates), over time, the child internalizes these strategies and moves into self-regulation. So, it makes logical sense that if a child was not taught co-regulation with a caregiver in childhood, they may find making the next steps into self-regulation difficult as they have not routinely experienced effective regulation strategies with another, these strategies have not been successfully modeled, so the child has not had a chance to practice and internalize them. If a child has no regulation strategies in their emotional toolkit, self-regulation becomes a highly stressful situation relying on in-the-moment trial and error - the ultimate dysregulating experience. This is why co-regulation with an adult in school may need to take place. The teacher will need to calmly model these strategies as the child is experiencing distress, so the child actively participates. The more these are consistently modeled and reinforced, the greater the chance of internalization, and ultimately, self-regulation.

Suggestion 4: Offer Reassurance While Building Independence

•    Acknowledge feelings, then redirect to problem-solving.

•    Use planned check-ins instead of repeated immediate reassurance.

• Encourage students to identify evidence that they are on the right track.

•     Praise independent thinking and successful self-regulation.

  
  

Evidence behind this suggestion: Students with an insecure-resistant attachment style need to feel emotionally acknowledged first before any problem-solving (be that academic, emotional, or social) can take place. A gentle “I can see this feels difficult. Let us do the first question together and then you can see how you get on with the next two.” This signals to the student that their internal anxiety is being seen and not judged and that support will be provided and modelled in a relational way. The first step is crucial as it builds confidence in their own ability to take the next step into independent practice. You are setting them up for success in terms of content/skills but also building them up to move into aspects of independence. If we fall into the trap of doing the work with them for too long, we achieve the short term goal: task completion, but we inevitably delay facing the underlying issue: student anxiety and teacher dependence. Once this two-step process has been consistently repeated over time, confidence and certainty are established, and eventually, the teacher is no longer the sole source of either: they have become internalized feelings in the child.

Disorganised Attachment  - Type D

It can be easy to fall into the trap of assuming that disorganised attachment is a style of attachment that is simply "avoidant + anxious” a combination of the two insecure attachment styles, as young people with this attachment style can display behaviours linked to these, but this is an inaccurate understanding. While students with disorganised attachment may show both avoidant and anxious behaviours, the defining feature is that they often experience a conflict between wanting closeness and fearing it as a result of neglect or trauma. This can lead to highly inconsistent, unpredictable, or contradictory responses. As a result, some strategies used for avoidant and anxious students are helpful, but disorganised attachment requires additional approaches that prioritise safety, regulation, and relationship repair.

Suggestion 1: Prioritise relational safety before academic demands

• Create a calm entry routine.

• Use predictable transitions.

• Reduce public confrontation.

  
  

Evidence behind this suggestion: Students with this attachment style often show heightened and unpredictable responses to stress and uncertainty. Attachment and trauma research highlights the importance of safety and stable relationships as prerequisites for emotional regulation which must happen before other learning can take place. Whilst consistent routines and predictability are important for all young people, they are the core foundations for any trauma-informed approach and relatively little learning will happen inside an educational setting if these are not laid first. Young people with this attachment style have often been through adverse childhood experiences, most of which seem incomprehensible unless you, yourself, have experienced them. Safety is not just rarely felt, for some, it has never been felt, and a lack of physical and emotional insecurity is an all-pervasive feeling. It is not just that these young people have not been cared for adequately, many have been subjected to neglect or brutality in many forms, sometimes for a sustained period of time. This maltreatment has been significant (be it one incident or many) that it has been/would be clinically defined as ‘trauma.’ For many, each day is a fight for survival, not just an escape from rejection. Their nervous systems/bodies remember the trauma, and there will likely be certain stimuli that trigger the young person into a heightened stress response, despite the current situation being objectively safe. This is why relational safety must be established first, because a young person with this attachment style cannot learn whilst they feel deeply unsafe/threatened.

Suggestion 2: Co-regulate before correcting behaviour

• Notice the dysregulation.

• Stay calm and regulate yourself first.

• Create safety by reducing stress and using a calm, predictable approach.    Connect before correcting by acknowledging feelings.

• Co-regulate using calming strategies and your supportive presence.

  
  

Evidence behind this suggestion: The Attachment, Regulation and Competency (ARC) framework identifies regulation as a key mechanism for improving outcomes for children with complex trauma and attachment difficulties (Blaustein and Kinniburgh 2018). The steps above come directly from this framework (the later steps: reflect, repair, and reconnect are explored in the suggestion below). This framework suggests that we must regulate a child first, guide their nervous system out of the initial stress responses (fight, flight, freeze, fawn, flop), before reflecting on the distressing situation later on when the child has successfully regulated. This sounds obvious, but when we are presented with a highly dysregulated child, we can sometimes forget this framework’s advice or feel unsure how to implement it. The core message is that co-regulation is essential for young people with this attachment style, and direct confrontation is not just fruitless in terms of desired outcomes, it is damaging. We cannot educate a young person with disorganized attachment by correcting their behaviour or sanctioning them in the moment, their nervous system is not ready and you are running the risk of escalating the situation further.

Suggestion 3: Reflect, Repair and Reconnect (after successful co-regulation – and the timing of these stages must be carefully considered – not immediate)

• Hold restorative conversations.

• Communicate: "The behaviour wasn't okay, but our relationship is okay."

  
  

Evidence behind this suggestion: After the previous steps listed above have been followed and co-regulation has been successful, we as staff, need to consider when the most appropriate time is to help a student reflect. These reflections will form part of  restorative conversation/s where the below will be discussed:

·       Explore → "What happened?"

·       Impact → "Who was affected?"

·       Responsibility → "What was your/my part?"

·       Repair → "How can we put things right?"

·       Plan → "What will help next time?"

·       Reconnect → "We're moving forward together.

When coming back to these emotionally tricky conversations at a later time, it is essential that the student feels safe (a student identified ‘safe’ person is present), there are no leading questions asked or judgement served. Observe any effective therapist in action, and you may see they guide the conversation with open questions that allow the person to self-explore and reach their own conclusions. By following a similar approach, the teacher can support the young person to reflect.

Suggestion 4: Work within a multidisciplinary team

• Liaise with safeguarding leads.

• Share information and work with relevant external professionals, as well as in-school counsellors, psychologists, and pastoral staff.

• Work closely with the family and include them (if appropriate) in decisions

• Share consistent approaches across adults.

  
  

Evidence behind this suggestion: Due to the ACEs that children with this attachment style have lived, coordinated adult responses between individuals and agencies are essential, because severe attachment difficulties are frequently associated with broader social, emotional, and mental health needs. Whilst the DSL and SENDCo may lead this approach, it is essential that we support their roles by proactively contributing information, no matter how small it might seem, to the ongoing conversation about how we provide care for each of these young people who all have very individual lived experiences and personalities.

9.      A Whole School Approach to Attachment-Informed Practice

There is, quite rightly, a large focus in many school’s SEND and related inclusion policies on the power of emotional regulation, and how staff can help students to do this. But, if we accept that ‘Attachment is the foundation of emotion regulation’ (Sroufe 1996) and schools/staff are presented with students who do not demonstrate a secure attachment style, and therefore may lack the emotional tools to regulate themselves, how can staff teach them?

CPD Developing an Attachment Aware Culture - Staff need to be given the opportunity to read and learn about attachment styles. Why? Because the research tells us that early attachment has a profound impact on brains/nervous systems, which directly impacts the perceived sense of safety that a child feels in any given situation. If a child does not feel safe, then a child may become a student that does not learn effectively. How can schools be asking staff to form positive relationships with, and teach students, when they may have limited understanding of that child’s psychology? Schools are missing a trick here. We can focus all we like on how learning happens, but if we do not account for the cognitive neuroscience of attachment, effective learning may not ever take place. A child that does not feel safe and has an insecure/disorganized attachment style, may not engage with even low-stakes retrieval practice, for fear of failure. A child that fears disappointing a teacher or a peer may retreat from learning or misbehave in an attempt to divert attention away from their own self-perceived lack of competence. Yes, we should be providing training on belonging and how to create a culture that students feel a part of, but we may not fully succeed in either if we do not first address the lived experience and attachment psychology of our children. So, let schools start with inclusion training that explains how attachments are formed, types and potential manifested behaviours in the classroom. Only then can staff truly understand the children in their care and attempt to teach them.

Policy Design- We often hear about child-centred policies, and ‘putting the child first,’ but how often have we experienced a policy in action through the eyes of a child with an insecure/disorganized attachment style? I am willing to wager that it is rare. School leaders need to be educated on attachment styles to be able to design behaviour, SEND and other inclusion policies and evaluate these through the lens of attachment. Why? Because your inclusion policies probably are not inclusive if you do not consider the emotional/safety needs of all students. Imagine that you are a child that has been raised in the care system. You have had a number of foster placements and found it hard to feel safe/secure because of this transience. To then attend school, fail to meet the behaviour policy on numerous occasions and are then faced with isolation rooms, or at worst, the threat of PEX, all that student hears and feels is: rejection, instability, lack of security. Whilst I am not advocating for school leaders to not have a clear line on behaviour and exclusions, I am advocating for policies to be written through the eyes of those who will be experiencing those policies. Leaders need to understand attachment psychology before they can effectively write an inclusion policy, and children/families need to be consulted.

Tutoring/Pastoral System Design and Operation- Although direct evidence is limited, attachment theory and research on school belonging suggest that students with insecure or disorganized attachment may benefit from vertical tutoring systems (where the tutee remains with the same tutor throughout their school career) because such systems increase opportunities for stable adult relationships, cross-age mentoring, and a sense of belonging. Studies of vertical tutoring report stronger pastoral relationships and prosocial behaviour, while attachment research consistently shows that supportive relationships at school can buffer the effects of insecure attachment (Education Policy Institute 2021). This allows the child/family to build a long-term relationship with one member of staff. A key worker system, whereby vulnerable students are assigned one member of staff who becomes their primary point of contact. Both systems allow staff to really know their students and act as advocates/intermediaries. In some schools, they operate a tiered system which combines vertical tutors, key workers, and specialist staff (counsellors, Educational Psychologists etc.)

Supporting Care Experienced Students- Care experienced students are significantly more likely to have more complex attachment needs. Aside from the key point raised earlier in this article, regarding policy and system design, there are other things that can be done to support these vulnerable students. When co-constructing a PEP, attachment needs and trauma experiences should be included, with support strategies designed to meet these needs. Mentoring systems should be central to each PEP, with daily check-ins with a key worker (who monitors attendance, behaviour incidents etc.) and weekly mentoring sessions. The daily check-ins allow for day-to-day support, but the weekly mentoring allows the student/key worker to evaluate how well the student is doing at meeting their pre-planned targets. It is good practice for a member of SLT to track these students as they go through their day, as Ofsted will (however, not for this purpose!), and not merely rely on their quantitative data, because the qualitative experience of that child needs to be observed holistically to really comprehend that young person’s school experience.

Managing Transition – The experience of transition varies greatly from school to school. I have observed some truly wonderful transition programmes, but alas, seen some that were less wonderful. The key to success? Design.

A highly effective transition model might include:

1. Every student is known as an individual (data has been gathered in advance-  students have their own transition passports, families as well as previous schools/agencies have been included- observational data as well as quantitative values)

2. Every vulnerable student has a key worker (daily check-ins, weekly mentoring, a specific transition PEP with clear targets, staged Virtual School reviews in the first term)

3. Transition starts months before September (welcome and information evenings in June, family engagement frameworks designed, tutoring programme/PSHE resourced for September- focus on belonging/culture/routines/expectations, August ‘welcome’ contact)

4. Belonging is measured, not assumed (student/family voice reviews that have high construct validity, held at intermittent review dates)

5. The programme continues through the first term, not just transition day.

   
   

If implemented well, this would align closely with EEF behaviour and NICE wellbeing guidance, Virtual School expectations, and current evidence on school belonging and inclusion.

Support Co-Regulation - Many students with attachment difficulties struggle to self-regulate. Aside from staff training on what co-regulation is and its effects, schools should be thoughtfully designing safe spaces or regulation rooms. These are not ‘typical’ rooms (such as classrooms), and they most definitely are not isolation or punitive spaces. These are safe spaces where trained pastoral staff meet with students who need temporary emotional support. They are designed with safety, space, sensory regulation, and movement, in mind. When used effectively (trained staff, data monitoring, clear policies, prior to restorative discussions regarding behaviour incidents), they can significantly change the course of the day for the young person using them.

10. The Evolution of Adult Attachment Research

Attachment theory originally focused on the formation of attachment bonds and respective behaviours in young people. Bowlby’s work, as discussed above, talked about the importance of early attachments which then guided Ainsworth to categorise three attachment styles (Secure, Insecure-Resistant, Insecure-Avoidant) and later, Main & Solomon’s addition of a fourth attachment style (disorganised). These can be used to understand young people’s behaviours and approaches to relationships. Bowlby proposed the concept of an internal working model; a set of expectations held by each young person, of what attachments/relationships should look like. These relationship schemas are not rigid; they are shaped by personal relational experience but largely hinge on the early attachment experiences in what he termed the ‘critical period’ (now largely interpreted to be more of a sensitive period). However, it is only in more recent decades that research has focused on adult attachment.

Hazan and Shaver’s work published in 1987 was arguably the break-through research into adult attachment, with the focus on romantic relationships. They extended Bowlby's attachment theory beyond childhood and helped explain important aspects of adult relationships, including intimacy, jealousy, commitment, and relationship satisfaction. Their work concluded that Ainsworth’s 3 attachment styles did link to adult experiences of romantic attachment, and that the prevalence of secure, avoidant, and anxious attachment among adults was roughly similar to the proportions previously observed in infant attachment research.

Secure: Comfortable with intimacy and trust.

Avoidant: Uncomfortable with closeness and dependence.

Anxious/Ambivalent: Fearful of abandonment and overly concerned about relationships.

In the 1990s, adult attachment came to the fore of personality and relationship psychology. However, this new wave of research veered away from these specific categories to measuring anxiety and avoidant dimensions.

In 2011, Harms published ‘Adult Attachment Styles in the Workplace’, a landmark review exploring attachment theory in the realm of management and organizational psychology. Harms paved the way for a new era of psychological research. He concluded that attachment styles are relatively stable over the lifespan, and that attachment theory provides a useful framework for understanding leadership, trust, satisfaction, and performance in organizations (Harms 2011).

Fast forward to 2024 and Warnock et al. conducted a meta-analysis Warnock et al. (2024) to evaluate the extent to which adult attachment styles are associated with workplace attitudes, behaviours, and performance outcomes. The study sought to establish the strength of these relationships, assess whether attachment contributes unique predictive value beyond the Big Five personality traits, and investigate trust in supervisors as a mechanism linking attachment to organisational outcomes. Their conclusion was that attachment styles could predict workplace outcomes more effectively than the personality traits studied, trust in leaders is a key explanatory mechanism, avoidant and anxious attachment do matter in the workplace; therefore attachment theory is a valuable framework for organizational research and practice (Warnock et al.2024).

Since this landmark review, research is focusing on not whether attachment matters, but how it matters, what impact does it have?

11. Understanding Your Team: Insights from Adult Attachment Research

An Overview of: “Attachment and Self-Regulation in the Workplace: A Theoretical Integration" (2024) by Queyu Ren, Anna Topakas, and M. Malcolm Patterson.

Perhaps the most exciting piece of research into attachment theory and organizational outcomes has been conducted by Ren et al, 2024. By integrating attachment theory research (as discussed in previous sections) and Self-Regulation Theory (a theory that proposes that individuals control their thoughts, emotions, and behaviours in pursuit of personal goals), they explore how attachment styles (or systems) interplay with work-related situations (‘activation cues’), and how an individual self regulates, which affects work outcomes. Ren et al. describe this as opening the "attachment black box" between attachment orientation and organisational outcomes.

Figure 2. Activation and regulation processes in the relationship between attachment styles and work outcomes. Reprinted from Ren, Topakas and Patterson (2024)

The authors propose that attachment styles operate as internal psychological systems that shape how individuals; interpret workplace interactions/situations, manage their own emotions (affective regulation), and decide on behavioural responses (behavioural regulation). Workplace outcomes are significantly affected by these regulatory systems.

They reference Bowlby’s work on attachment theory and propose that the attachment styles people adopt as a result of early attachment shape their own internal working models of perceived self (in the context of the workplace ‘Am I skilled? Am I competent? Am I fit for this role?’) and perception of others (Can I trust this colleague? Are they competent? Will they support me?’).

Ren et al. (2024) propose that differences in attachment orientation are reflected in distinct cognitive, affective, and behavioural self-regulatory processes, as summarised in their Table 2:

Note. Reprinted from Table 2 in Attachment and Self-Regulation in the Workplace: A Theoretical Integration, by Q. Ren, A. Topakas, and M. M. Patterson, 2024, Frontiers in Psychology, 15, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1387548

Using both the table above and later sections of the article, Ren et al provide enough detail to inform how colleagues with the three differing attachment styles may typically  think, feel, and behave in the workplace.

Secure Attachment

Colleagues with a secure attachment style tend to be the most realistic and balanced compared to colleagues with other attachment styles. Cognitively, they are more likely to interpret social situations with a healthy dose of optimism and skepticism, and their conclusions tend to appear rational. They are less likely to misinterpret ambiguous situations and assume that other colleagues have positive intentions. Because their self-perception is grounded in security, they tend to be more open to constructive feedback because they believe themselves to be largely competent. One example of this in action is that when a line manager requests a meeting, the employee does not assume that it is because they have made an error but will attend with a core self-belief that they are skilled (with room for improvement), ready for supportive professional feedback. Emotionally, secure colleagues typically self-regulate well. When faced with novel or stressful situations, they may still experience negative emotions, but these are not overwhelming. This does not mean that they will not experience ‘off days,’ but largely, their emotional landscape is consistent and predictable. Behaviourally, secure colleagues are effective collaborators. This is because they are rational, emotionally predictable and are comfortable in both seeking and providing comfort to team mates. Their communication is direct, open, and constructive, and because of this, they form collegiate relationships with relative ease. From a leadership perspective, securely attached colleagues tend to establish healthy and high-quality relationships with their leaders. This is because they trust their authority figures but also maintain a sense of professional autonomy. Due to this established trust and sense of agency, these colleagues contribute more to professional discourse in a constructive manner, engage more and report higher levels of job satisfaction. These colleagues typically make effective leaders because of their high emotional intelligence, resilience in the face of adversity, commitment to team/organizational goals and ability to maintain healthy workplace relationships.

Anxious Attachment

Anxiously attached colleagues tend to have a less realistic interpretation of workplace relationships and situations, and this is because they tend to be hyper-vigilant. Cognitively, these colleagues are continually looking for comfort and reassurance in their relationships and workplace environment. They will monitor workplace relationships for social evidence that they are accepted, valued, and that they matter. Their self-perception tends to be more critical and will often misinterpret intentions and actions of fellow colleagues. One example of an anxiously attached colleague’s response to feedback might be that they interpret this negatively, feeling it is a personal attack or rejection. They might then process this as evidence that they are not competent in their role, which reinforces the cycle of critical self-perception. Emotionally, they are less predictable than colleagues with secure attachment, this is because their emotional responses hinge on interpretations of relationships and their perceived sense of value/rejection. These colleagues typically experience more anxiety, self-doubt, and heightened stress responses. Interestingly, Ren et al. state that the amount of self-regulation that a colleague with this attachment style conducts is significant. The more time that a colleague devotes to managing personal insecurities, the fewer resources remain available for task performance and decision-making, impacting organizational outcomes. From a behavioural perspective, anxious employees typically seek praise and reassurance, asking for feedback (in the hope that it is affirming). They may strive excessively for approval, work hard to gain social/professional acceptance, but due to self-doubt, may become overly reliant on their leaders. Colleagues with this attachment style typically work hard, but due to the socio-emotional-cognitive strain on their resources, they may experience higher levels of stress and burnout. Anxious colleagues can form very positive relationships with their leaders, as they are keen to impress and improve, but leadership of these colleagues needs to be consistent. Inconsistency leaves room for ambiguity, which an anxiously attached colleague may misinterpret. When effectively led, colleagues with this attachment style may demonstrate high interpersonal awareness, emotional intelligence, and a strong concern for team relationships. Because of their sensitivity to team dynamics, they can carry a lot of emotional weight and conduct a lot of socio-emotional processing. Despite the term ‘empath’ being a poorly defined psychological personality concept, it is useful to employ in this context, as many colleagues who are regarded by others as empathetic may have an anxious attachment style. They can read others deeply and are highly sensitive to social and emotional changes. If you want to understand your team’s feelings on an issue, ask the empaths in your team, they can give you a deep read on body language, tone, and other relational dynamics. However, be mindful of their perceived misinterpretations and use their observational data as part of your own before making any decisions.

Avoidant Attachment

Colleagues with avoidant attachment may appear as ‘lone wolves.’ Cognitively, their self-perception tends to be positive, in the sense that they feel they can rely on themselves, but their perception of others can be negative. They learned in their early attachments that they could not rely on others, so adapted to this by becoming self-reliant. This professional (and personal) independence means that they tend to be skeptical of others’ intentions and motivations, and question whether support is genuine. Colleagues with this attachment style may be more suspicious and question the authenticity of praise, and due to their self-reliance, they tend to prioritise autonomy over teamwork and collaboration. Emotionally, colleagues with avoidant tendencies rarely express their feelings openly. When faced with a novel or stressful situation, individuals with this attachment style often engage in deactivating strategies, suppressing their emotional needs and desires, in a bid to maintain control and autonomy. Colleagues with this attachment style may routinely ask for space and distance, as these create a feeling of containment, control, and subsequent safety. As a result, these employees may appear calm and self-sufficient even when experiencing significant stress. Colleagues with an avoidant attachment style may intellectualise their emotions when discussing them. Instead of verbally facing them head on, they compartmentalize by referring to the logistics of a decision, rather than the emotional consequences. However, deactivating strategies do have a time-limit, and emotions may be expressed when either the deactivating strategy is exhausted, or is no longer required, because the individual has experienced enough space to feel safe once again. Behaviourally, they set and maintain strong personal boundaries, often to reduce emotional exposure and vulnerability. They will often prefer working independently, limit relationship-building efforts and avoid seeking help for fear of being perceived as inadequate. From a leadership perspective, they tend to work best when they are given autonomy and are not closely monitored. However, they may struggle to benefit from coaching, mentoring, or supportive leadership initiatives because they are reluctant to depend on others and mistrust of other colleagues. This does not mean that colleagues with avoidant attachment styles will not benefit, it means that careful consideration must be made when deciding on workplace partnerships and establishing dynamics. In a team environment, these colleagues can be relied upon to produce and contribute to core goals but may find it challenging to establish relationships that will foster effective collaboration.

Attachment Styles, Associated Theoretical Perspectives and Organisational Outcomes- Ren et al (2024)

Attachment Style	Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986)	Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll, 1989)	Stress & Coping Theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984)	Leader-Member Exchange Theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995)	Typical Organisational Outcomes
Secure	Higher self-efficacy, confidence, and sense of agency.	Builds and replenishes social and psychological resources effectively.	Uses adaptive coping and balanced threat appraisal.	Develops high-trust, high-quality relationships with leaders.	Higher engagement, wellbeing, job satisfaction, commitment, and performance; lower burnout.
Anxious	Lower and less stable self-efficacy; confidence depends on feedback from others.	Psychological resources are consumed by worry, vigilance, and reassurance-seeking.	More likely to perceive threat, ruminate and experience emotional strain.	Highly sensitive to leader behaviour and relationship quality.	Higher stress, burnout, and turnover intentions; variable satisfaction and wellbeing.
Avoidant	May appear self-confident but avoids dependence and collaborative learning.	Less likely to access social support resources even when available.	Uses distancing, emotional suppression and avoidance strategies.	May develop lower-trust and lower-investment relationships with leaders.	Reduced collaboration and trust; weaker team relationships; may thrive in autonomous roles.

Note. Author's synthesis of attachment theory literature, primarily adapted from Ren, Topakas, and Patterson (2024), and interpreted through Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura 1986), Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll 1989), Stress and Coping Theory (Lazarus & Folkman 1984), and Leader-Member Exchange Theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien 1995)

The paper concludes that whilst attachment styles can be a useful predictor of workplace outcomes, attachment effects are not always activated. Workplace conditions such as uncertainty, interpersonal dependence, threat, leadership relationships, and organisational context can strengthen or weaken attachment-related responses. Thus, it is essential we understand our colleagues through the lens, not only of attachment styles, but of workplace context. 

12. Closing Personal Reflections

Despite having taught the psychology of attachment for a number of years now, I had never really understood it on a personal level. Because of this, I would argue that I never really understood it at all. Having spent the best part of a year reading and researching attachment in a bid to understand my own thoughts, behaviours, and relationships, I am now at the stage where I am ready to heal some of them. For those of you that know me well, which is only a handful of close friends, you will probably be able to ascertain that my own attachment style is disorganized, but more anxious leaning. Writing this article allowed me to really look at myself in the mirror and, for the first time, see myself clearly. Whilst it has been painful at times, I now know the parts of me that need deep emotion and attachment work. I hope that by reading this, you have been able to see parts of yourself that will help you on your journey or will help others on theirs. Truth be told, I spent much of my life longing to change the world. Yet in writing these pages, I discovered a quieter truth: the world begins to change only when we turn inward and have the courage to transform ourselves. As teachers, parents, and colleagues, we often speak about the importance of belonging. I propose that the best place to start exploring what this means for others, is by exploring this in ourselves, and what better place to start than attachment?

Author: Louise Marie Pickering

References

Ainsworth, M.D.S. and Bell, S.M. (1970) ‘Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation’, Child Development, 41(1), pp. 49-67.

Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1973) ‘The development of infant-mother attachment’, in Caldwell, B.M. and Ricciuti, H.N. (eds.) Review of Child Development Research. Vol. 3. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1-94.

Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., and Wall, S. (1978) Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

American Psychiatric Association (2022) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th edn., text rev. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Arain, M., Haque, M., Johal, L., Mathur, P., Nel, W., Rais, A., Sandhu, R., and Sharma, S. (2013) ‘Maturation of the adolescent brain’, Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 9, pp. 449-461. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S39776

Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Blaustein, M.E. and Kinniburgh, K.M. (2018) Treating Traumatic Stress in Children and Adolescents: How to Foster Resilience Through Attachment, Self-Regulation, and Competency. 2nd edn. New York: Guilford Press.

Bowlby, J. (1951) Maternal Care and Mental Health. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Bowlby, J. (1969) Attachment and Loss: Volume 1. Attachment. London: Hogarth Press.

Bowlby, J. (1982) Attachment and Loss: Volume 1. Attachment. 2nd edn. New York: Basic Books.

Cozolino, L. (2014) The Neuroscience of Human Relationships: Attachment and the Developing Social Brain. 2nd edn. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Education Policy Institute (2021) Vertical Tutoring: Will It Work at Your School? London: Education Policy Institute. Available at: https://educationobservatory.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/PPP-VerticalTutoring.pdf (Accessed: 12 August 2026).

Fraley, R.C., and Shaver, P.R. (2000) ‘Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions’, Review of General Psychology, 4(2), pp. 132-154.

Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995) ‘Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective’, The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), pp. 219-247.

Gunnar, M.R. and Quevedo, K. (2007) ‘The neurobiology of stress and development’, Annual Review of Psychology, 58, pp. 145-173. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085605

Harms, P.D. (2011) ‘Adult attachment styles in the workplace’, Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), pp. 285-296.

Hazan, C. and Shaver, P. (1987) ‘Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), pp. 511-524.

Hobfoll, S.E. (1989) ‘Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress’, American Psychologist, 44(3), pp. 513-524. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984) Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.

Main, M., and Hesse, E. (1990) ‘Parents’ unresolved traumatic experiences are related to infant disorganized attachment status: Is frightened/frightening parental behavior the linking mechanism?’, in Greenberg, M.T., Cicchetti, D. and Cummings, E.M. (eds.) Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 161-182.

Main, M., and Solomon, J. (1986) ‘Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment pattern’, in Brazelton, T.B. and Yogman, M.W. (eds.) Affective Development in Infancy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 95-124.

Main, M., and Solomon, J. (1990) ‘Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation’, in Greenberg, M.T., Cicchetti, D. and Cummings, E.M. (eds.) Attachment in the Preschool Years. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 121-160.

Ren, Q., Topakas, A. and Patterson, M.M. (2024) ‘Attachment and self-regulation in the workplace: A theoretical integration’, Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1387548. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1387548

Siegel, D.J. (2020) The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are. 3rd edn. New York: Guilford Press.

Spilt, J.L. and Koomen, H.M.Y. (2022) ‘Three decades of research on individual teacher-child relationships: A chronological review of prominent attachment-based themes’, Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 920985. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.920985

Sroufe, L.A. (1996) Emotional Development: The Organization of Emotional Life in the Early Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thompson, R.A. (2008) ‘Early attachment and later development: Familiar questions, new answers’, in Cassidy, J. and Shaver, P.R. (eds.) Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. 2nd edn. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 348-365.

Van IJzendoorn, M.H. and Kroonenberg, P.M. (1988) ‘Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: A meta-analysis of the Strange Situation’, Child Development, 59(1), pp. 147-156.

Warnock, K.N., Ju, C.S. and Katz, I.M. (2024) ‘A meta-analysis of attachment at work’, Journal of Business and Psychology, 39(6), pp. 1239-1257. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-024-09960-9

World Health Organization (2019) International Classification of Diseases for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (11th edn.). Geneva: World Health Organization.