How common is fearful-avoidant style? Here's what I found

Just some food for thought:

I didn't think I engaged in push/pull at first. After further reflection I realized that was just because a lot of it was subtle, it was unintentional, I rationalized it, and because I do really try to be considerate to other people. I used to have this mistaken assumption that people acting FA had some awareness of what they were doing and why. Just as some examples, say I take a long time to reply to a text, the thought process may just be, "I'm not going to text this person back right now because I don't know what to say", or "because I am busy," or "because I am feeling overwhelmed by life," or, "because I bet they will reply right away and expect a long back-and-forth," and then later, "Oh I totally forgot to get back to them, technology is too much sometimes," or, "I guess I must not be that interested in them if I forgot to text them." Or if maybe I get an urge to not go out with someone, I might think, "I don't feel like going out tonight, I guess it's because I'm tired," or, 'I really need to clean my kitchen instead," or whatever. I had to become aware of my attachment issues to even notice what I was doing. The push/pull can be so subtle that it remains in my head and I don't act on it. Like during the time I am apart from someone for a while I might feel really excited about seeing them (but not say so), then when I see them I think, "Wait, do I even like them that much?" and then maybe later on I might think, "What was I thinking, they are amazing," and so forth. Meanwhile I am so used to wearing a mask that I'm probably not actually behaving much differently towards the person. So push/pull doesn't always have to be something as dramatic and breaking up and getting back together, or not replying to calls and texts for a month but then texting every day for a week.

Sometimes it has been more dramatic things, like maybe I have a sudden need to go somewhere 4000 miles away and depart in a few days. But I'd think something like, "It's just because it's so cold here and I'm not happy," not that I was pulling away from someone.

Generally I am not extremely anxious or extremely avoidant at this point in my life. Some people are very high in anxiety and very high in avoidance, so their feelings and behaviors will be more intense and noticeable. 

I think attachment can be dynamic as an adjective, a dynamic as a noun, AND also a general style. A style is just a system or manner of doing something, but it doesn't have to be rigid and can still be affected by external influences. A dynamic is a force that stimulates change in the system or style, such as the dynamic between two particular people. And dynamic as an adjective means changeable. I'm not sure "stable" would be the quite the right word for an attachment style, I think of a style more like a process that tries to maintain or return stability. Homeostasis depends on negative feedback loops, so anything that interferes with the feedback mechanisms can disrupt homeostasis.



I totally believe someone can have their "normal" be DA and still feel/act slightly AP under unusual circumstances. The key is that the situation and feeling/behavior is unusual. We are humans. As a (maybe not great) analogy, if someone is usually a calm and happy person and then their kid dies and they are super sad, that doesn't make them not a generally calm and happy person.

Acting needy and knowing how to identify and express one's needs are not the same thing. Someone being AP might send off 10 texts when their partner doesn't reply for a day, yet not tell them, "I feel best when the person I'm dating texts me every day. This helps me feel close to them and cared about. What about you?" THAT would be more vulnerable. AP involves anxiety about being abandoned and doubts about one's worth. Why do you associate activity with vulnerability and passivity with fear of vulnerability? I don't. 

This thread makes me wonder if people really just have low or high self esteem-- I am going to start a new thread on that topic.

Re: AP's and neediness, in the situations where I've been most AP, I would often withdraw to protect my vulnerability. The notion of someone sending a million texts kind of perplexes me. I'd imagine writing a million texts in my head, sure, but actually send more than one or maybe two? No... and the idea of asking for reassurance and risk appearing needy and thus turning someone off-- well that's not going to happen. When things seem fragile, best to not rock the boat...

Or at least that's how I remember it. But then I came across some old emails that I had no memory of sending, and there are several times I sent people a "is there a reason you're ignoring me" sort of email, then promptly repressed the memory of the entire ordeal so as to think of myself as someone who would not risk that sort of vulnerability.

Strange...

I agree even a style isn't rigid, and "stable" might be a wrong word. But I believe there is some basic amount of intimacy that feels comfortable for a person (which may be quite stable, stemming from their childhood attachments), and they tend to seek this comfort zone in their relationships by either pushing or pulling. Like you said, "a process that tries to maintain or return stability", but I see that this happens in a dynamic when two people with different styles (basic needs for intimacy) meet. I think we generally think the same way, just use different terms and understand them a bit differently.


Yeah, sounds reasonable. It is too black-and-white to say DAs never feel anxious, but I think this is what many texts have been saying and what the attachment style tests imply. I'm also writing from personal experience - knowing DAs who just let the relationship drift away if the other one is more avoidant than them, or not getting interested in the first place. But personal experience is not the truth, and even DAs can be different.

It is also possible that all insecure people have the capability to feel anxious, but their "style" is defined by what amount of avoidance from their partners is needed to bring it out. For avoidants, most people are less avoidant than them and they usually don't need to feel anxious, so that it what makes them avoidants.

I'm not trying to say I know anything better. I'm just pointing out some inconsistencies and contradictory statements that I've come across when reading about attachment theory, and I'm trying to form a coherent general view of these things. I theorize a lot and always question things, even my own thinking. But of course these things are complex because people are complex.


I realize I might understand vulnerability a little bit different from most people.

From my perspective, initiating contact and asking for response feels very vulnerable and uncomfortable. It feels like showing others that I need something from them, and I don't want them to think I need anything. It is like revealing myself and giving others the power to reject and hurt me.

From what I've read about APs, their belief seems to be "if I just try hard enough, I will get a response". They actively try to get their needs met. My belief is "if I don't try at all, I'll see who care for me and who don't", and my first assumption is that I will be rejected if I try anything, so I don't see any point in trying. I get totally passive. I wait for others to come to me, I never ask them to do it. If they don't, I just conclude they're not interested and give up. I only feel safe with people who chase me and that's basically how all my friendships have developed: someone being persistent enough to not care how many times I involuntarily reject them. At some point I may feel safe enough to start initiating contact sometimes, but I still need to feel they do it more. I always adjust my needs towards the person to their level and even below it. I used to be unaware of doing this until some of my friends said I behaved like I didn't even want to have them around. Maybe it has felt like push-pull to them.

It has been the same in dating. I must have been quite rejective to the people I've being seeing. At the same time I may have been wondering how much they care for me, and I haven't realized I'm pushing them away while still hoping they'd come for me.

That's good self-insight.

AP activity is not truly vulnerable because it's not about clearly expressing needs, seeing if the other person is willing to meet them and accepting what happens, it is about control, about thinking if they say and do the right things the person will love them. Being passive or receptive can be giving up control to others and can in some ways be more vulnerable (although obviously it can feel safer for some). A person being AP thinks they want to be very close with someone, but they've often found that people are reluctant to get as close as they would like, and they blame themselves, so they may also hide their real needs. They may ask for too little in relationships because their main fear is the other person leaving. They may not really even know what they need, other than to not be abandoned and have reassurance. They might sometimes be able to stifle their pleas for reassurance in the hopes of not being abandoned. Sadly, their desire for constant reassurance can drive people away from them, confirming their worldview that they will be abandoned (and people subconsciously want to have their worldview be confirmed). To me, it doesn't seem like a contradiction that someone feeling AP can both act needy and hide or undervalue needs, but I'm not sure if I'm explaining it well.

You could look at not expressing needs as still something the person is "doing" to try to get their greater need to not be abandoned met, if that makes sense.


There's a thread somewhere about criticisms of attachment theory you might be interested in.

First, your whole post was great. Gave me lots to think about.

Second, I see attachment theory as standing independently of personality and other variables. I think it's up to us to differentiate between when we're being insecure in our attachment (and that it's okay to be sometimes as long as it doesn't define the relationship) vs. if it's just our personality or natural preferences. Because some things that can be considered insecure really aren't. I think the reason or intention behind a behavior or action is what will help in differentiating. I don't think that makes attachment theory less valid, I think it makes it disconnected from everything else and that means it won't fit perfectly.

(I compare this problem to the field of neuroscience: it's interdisciplinary and to come up with a unifying theory you need to combine knowledge from many different sciences: physics, chemistry, biology, and the softer sciences like psychology and even sociology, while e.g. physics and chemistry themselves stand alone... if we want to understand the brain, it will be a HUGE feat that requires laws within laws and theories within theories. But that doesn't mean the individual theories are less valid, it means they're not very complete because they're not fitted into the bigger context.)


Both. I don't see it as mutually exclusive. Lots of overlap. In some situations, it's possible that it could move more towards a dynamic, in others, mostly a style, and yet in others... both.


No. Because of what I mentioned before (personality and other variables). Is it possible that we are attracted to certain people only because they enable that dynamic? Maybe. In my experience (and I know it might not be everyone's experience), there are other things at play.

I'll give you a real life example. I'm currently in a non-relationship (?) with a DA, in another post I concluded he was a narcissist and gave up on him, upon gathering more data and getting to know him more... classic DA, no narcissist but sure shows a lot of traits. Anyway, I'm working on myself while I'm around him. The less Fearful Avoidant I get, the less crazy/triggering the dynamic. BUT, underneath it all, there is another 'pull' I suspect we both feel towards each other. It's the way we think and move about in the world. Very similar. He resembles a more confident and practical me, and I think I resemble a more human and dreamy him. And yet still, other variables pull us together too: his life goals match mine, I also have a 'crazy' risk-taking streak that he likes, etc.


There's a point in defining a style if we understand it not as a static thing, but as a dynamic (adjective) thing. It is consistent in the long run, on average. Just as you'd flip a coin 4036220 times and you'd get closer to 50-50 heads-tails than you would if you flipped it only 10 times.


Because it is a dynamic thing and people are people (i.e. a lot more than just their attachment style), they can be triggered into all sorts of behavior and reactions. No one is perfectly DA, FA, AP, or secure. DAs have lots of repressed feelings, so while DA in general might be defined by the absence of anxiety and having a positive regard of oneself CONSCIOUSLY, underneath all of that is fear of abandonment, fear of rejection, negative regard of oneself, etc. all of which can cause bad anxiety. The DA I mentioned earlier has been triggered into anxiety by me many times. And I mean he looked visibly nervous and even concerned when I once said in passing that I was leaving. While I, as an FA, have made sure to never show that side of me to him, making me seem more DA than him. It happens.


Yeah, there are several ways it can manifest, that doesn't make someone not FA in general though. Another way it can manifest if you're with another avoidant: you feel no need to pull away with them because they are so cold but on the occasions that they become warm, you may either really like it or you may shut down because they are warm in a way that triggers a specific insecurity in you. It really depends on the individuals, not every DA and FA is the same. OR, the FA may control the situation so that they're intimate and avoidant at just the right times, making them appear more secure.


This is a really good point and I have noticed and done the same by comparing FAs and DAs to each other. But I think there's a reason for it. I think the AP type of anxiety is more surface level than the avoidance in DA. I suspect this is why it's harder to heal from DA than it is from AP. DA is defined by repression; unconscious. I think AP may be more suppression (I could be wrong); conscious. Since FA has both, then it makes more sense to compare them to DAs more so than APs, although they have traits of both. Because at the base level, they will be avoidant rather than anxious.

If we were to visualize a pyramid with three levels:

• The top will be the secure because they are aware of themselves and their issues and they've made peace with their insecurities for the most part. They're 'open', not secretive, so they're on the surface.
• The mid-level will be the AP, they are lacking in self love and neglecting themselves, but they're not so repressed and unaware that there's little hope for them. Since they are attuned to other people's feelings, they just have to turn that inwards.
• The last level is the DA. Although they appear confident and put together like nothing phases them, when you poke around enough, you'll trigger them into oblivion and all their stuff comes up: their sense of worthlessness, their self criticism, their anxiety, their deep fears, their shame, etc.

(Another way we can organize the pyramid, is by swapping the AP and secure, placing AP at the top — because they're "too open" although not necessarily, but they come across that way — and secure in the middle of AP and DA, because they're boundaried AND open but in the 'right' ways.)

Where does the FA fit into all of this? I think FA is the pyramid. lol
I'm not even joking. They have all traits. And the reason they'd be considered more avoidant than anxious is because their anxiety is more surface level than their avoidance. E.g. I can fake a relationship up until a certain point; eventually my avoidance will kick in.


APs are the codependents of the bunch. Codependence manifest differently in different people AND in different situations/dynamics. If you look at the Patterns and Characteristics of Codependence on the CoDA website, you'll find conflicting characteristics like "lack empathy for the feelings and needs of others" and "are hypervigilant regarding the feelings of others and take on those feelings". It seems contradictory, but I don't think it is.

• One, the lack of empathy may show up in one situation while in another one can be hypervigilant.
• Two, likewise, the lack of empathy may show up in one codependent while another codependent is more hypervigilant (I think this is mainly personality differences).
• Three, going by your example: a person can be active and passive at the same time regarding different things (other people here have provided some good examples for this).

Another way I look at it is that secures are more willing to meet their intimacy needs. While FAs don't necessarily want less intimacy, they just fear going that far. Cue push-pull.


FAs are the inverted secures. I think that in itself is what they have in common. It's like the colors black and white. Their contrast is, ironically, what they have in common.


Very interesting. I think attachment style tends to seep into everything we do. But I wonder how much of her wondering how easily you moved through the world was due to her insecure style and how much of it was due to differences in lifestyle. I say this because I'm pretty adventurous but I'm FA. I don't 'easily' move through the world at all, but I can force myself because my adventurous trait will override everything else when it is strong enough. Now, imagine I wasn't adventurous at all. Even if I was secure, I wouldn't be seeking out new experiences like you are. That wouldn't make me less secure than you.

Furthermore, control and comfort aren't necessarily about attachment style. Again, this is where personal preference and lifestyle regardless of attachment comes in.


Well said.

I found it was confusing as well but as I understand now, one can be very clingly and dramatic but not really honest, authentic about their needs. For example, I had this ex who liked chatting all day long but he had nothing to say, I think he needed just to know that I was there, that I was not with anyone else, etc. He was not honest about his needs and when I called him up on his behaviour hi was in denial.

I'm not clear at all I guess, what I'm trying to say is sometimes AP will try to meet their needs in an indirect way, I suppose that maybe they don't even know clearly what their needs are. My ex was always trying to find pretexts to keep contact going, I think he'd be more honest if he said "I need to hear from you often, otherwise I'm anxious". And when I say that I'm not judging at all, I'm FA and when I'm more anxious it's how it looks like to me.