532 - Is Attachment Theory Just Bullsh*t?

Let’s revisit attachment theory!

We’re talking about attachment theory again, but this time we’re going to be focusing less on what it is and more about the pros and cons since it has risen in popularity over the past few years. If you want to learn more about attachment theory and attachment styles, check out episode 82 and episode 291 for information on attachment styles and attachment theory and non-monogamy respectively.

Nature vs. nurture: criticism of attachment theory

• Some of the biggest criticism about attachment theory comes from Judith Rich Harris in a paper and study published in 2009. Harris thought that children are not given enough attachment theory credit, and their environment and peers play a bigger role in their development than parents do.

• Another critic, Elizabeth E. Stock, points out that the death of a parent or divorce would prove to have greater effects on children than the initial development the child had as an infant.

• The type of relationship the parents have with each other will have impact on the child as well, not just the relationship the child has with the parent(s).

• Some have also pointed out that the dyadic model characteristic of attachment theory cannot address the complexity of real-life social experiences, as infants often have multiple relationships within the family and in child care settings. It is suggested these multiple relationships influence one another reciprocally, at least within a family.

• Some research on attachment theory may also not fully account for cultural differences in parenting practices and attachment expressions.

• In the attachment model, the mother of the child is viewed as the primary caregiver, but in reality, fathers or siblings can have the same attachment with the infant at the same time. The model does not consider attachments during adolescence, puberty, or adulthood.

• Categorizing infants into four behavioral categories is relatively easy, since their capacity for nuance is low. When looking at adult relationships, the lines are more blurry.

• People can experience different attachment styles with different people and different relationships. A person might exhibit all four styles throughout their life.

The case for attachment theory (and non-monogamy’s impact)

• Although many criticize it, a lot of people view attachment theory as an important tool for information and clarity on their relationship-specific behaviors. Labels and community can also help someone find an identity and work towards healthier relationships.

• While attachment theory has its flaws, it also has helped many people feel as though they understand themselves in ways they didn’t before.

• Research has shown that those who participate in ethical non-monogamy have more secure attachments, despite the misconception that non-monogamous adults are insecurely attached.

• Non-monogamy might be helpful for disorganized attachment styles, because of the option to have different partners fulfill emotional needs uniquely.

• Someone might have different attachment styles with different partners, which could potentially allow them to work towards healthier attachment in each relationship.

• Engaging and building upon multiple romantic relationships can help decrease feelings of anxiety and insecurity because of the higher frequency with which partners have to discuss intense emotions – in turn, this open communication is a step closer to developing secure attachment.

• Jessica Fern’s book Polysecure provides the HEARTS framework for working towards secure attachment in non-monogamy. Check out episode 291 for more about it.

To sum up, attachment theory can be a helpful tool when figuring out why someone responds in certain ways in times of crisis or stress. But we can’t forget that it’s just a theory, one that was created over seventy years ago. Remember that your attachment style can shift over time, and if you’re non-monogamous, use the HEARTS framework and tools like it to foster secure attachments.

Transcript

This document may contain small transcription errors. If you find one please let us know at info@multiamory.com and we will fix it ASAP.

Jase: On this episode of the Multiamory Podcast, we're talking about attachment theory and discussing some of the criticisms that attachment theory has faced since its popularity has risen. For some, attachment theory has been a powerful tool in helping them discover more about themselves and their relationships. Other people find it to be pseudo-pop psychology that should be taken with a grain of salt. Where do you fall on that spectrum? Where do we fall on that spectrum? Today, we're going to be talking about the case for and against attachment theory and discussing whether or not non-monogamy can help heal unhealthy attachments, or if that's even the right way to be thinking about this.

Also, if you're interested in learning about our fundamental communication tools that we reference on this show, check out our book Multiamory: Essential Tools for Modern Relationships. It covers our most used communication tools for all types of relationships, and you can find links to buy it in print form, ebook form, and now audiobook form at our site at multiamory.com/book, or wherever you get your books or audiobooks.

Emily: I have a quick question for the two of you.

Dedeker: As long as it's actually quick. We're at the beginning of a podcast episode, so you know where this could go?

Emily: Yes. We'll see how quick it actually becomes, but not only do I want you to tell me what you believe your attachment style to be, and we're going to maybe take a quiz here to see what the attachment project quiz says that our attachment styles are, but also how often does it come up in your therapy with your therapist? Because recently it's come up a lot in therapy for me, and it's caused me to think a little bit more about attachment theory in general, but then also in doing a dive on this episode.

Initially, I had thought this episode is going to be about healing attachment styles, but there was a lot of criticism on attachment theory out there, and it made me pivot into what this episode is going to be about today. Is attachment theory really something that we should be looking at and relying as heavily upon? With all that said, does it come up a lot in your therapy sessions?

Dedeker: Goodness, I don't think it ever has come up directly.

Emily: Really?

Dedeker: Maybe sometimes. Of course, I've talked about my relationships with my family, with my caregivers, with people that I'm in romantic partnership with, and I think I've talked about certain attachment dynamics, but at least from what I recall, it's never been a centring force that we keep or concept that we keep coming back to. If anything, I think that happens more frequently anytime I'm talking to anybody in the non-monogamous community, specifically.

Emily: Interesting.

Jase: I'm thinking back to, I'd say over the last four or five years, I've probably had three different therapists, just as I've been like, "I want a new perspective, I'll switch to someone else." I don't know that any of them have ever gone into attachment theory with me.

Emily: Fascinating.

Jase: It's interesting because I feel like when I listen to other podcasts that are about psychology or therapy, things like that, or articles I'll read on it, it comes up all the time. I don't know if that's just that the things I happen to bring up with my therapist don't have as much to do with that, or that's not the direction they've gone, or if there's something else, but yes, it is weird. I feel like I see it all the time being talked about more and more, yet I can't think of an example that any of the therapists I've had in the last several years have brought it up.

Emily: What would you say the two of your attachment styles are? I suppose we can just go ahead and take the quiz, too, if we want.

Dedeker: I'm a Virgo.

Emily: Yes. I know. Ain't that the truth?

Dedeker: Maybe that tells you everything you need to know, but actually I believe the last time I did any diagnostics, I usually end up on the avoidant end of the spectrum/anytime I've done, I suppose, a more qualitative diagnostic, like actually talking it over with a professional, and based on my family history, I suspect there's maybe-- I can go into disorganized sometimes as well, the gas break situation, but yes, I think that is what tends to be my default.

Emily: Jase?

Jase: Whatever the good one is.

Emily: Secure.

Dedeker: A Virgo.

Emily: A Virgo, is what that is.

Jase: I'm a Virgo rising, whatever that means about attachment style. When I've taken tests, I feel like it really varies. I like the ones that cover how that varies depending on the type of relationship. Is it your newer romantic relationships? Is it family, is it friends? That kind of thing. I like those just in terms of seeing how it can be different in different areas, but I would say, for me, gosh, it's been quite a while since I've done one. I'm trying to even think what it was last time.

Emily: We're going to take a quiz real quick and report back about what our attachment styles are. This is a free quiz online at quiz.attachmentproject.com is where you can find it. The thing that I found interesting about this one was that it does specifically ask, "Are you in a romantic relationship?" Then also, "Do you have children?" And it asks questions based on those answers. It asks questions specifically about your relationship with your mother, your relationship with your father, and then your romantic partner, and then overall, and because I don't have a child, I'm not sure if it asks questions about that person or those people.

I'm assuming if you say that yes, you have a kid or kids, then it will ask questions about the children as well. There's a unique thing specifically for you and me, Dedeker. The fact that we don't have father relationships, and because of that, I feel like the things that I said regarding that pushed me more in the spectrum of the attachment style that it gave me.

Dedeker: Interesting theory.

Emily: I wish that I could go back and redo the attachment style based on a father figure that was a more positive force in my life, but I did it on my existing father.

Dedeker: Yes, I don't know--

Jase: This does say--

Emily: The existing father that I unfortunately have. Yes.

Jase: This does say father/caregiver, so it does look a little vague, but still.

Dedeker: This is the problem, Jase. Sure, they do clarify if this person has passed away, which is my case. Then, answering these questions with respect to how you felt when they were alive, but that was only my first five years of life, right?

Emily: Yes, exactly.

Dedeker: Then of course, I have father-like figures/alternate caregivers in my life, but it's hard to pick who. I can think of three different adults, where my relationships with them are very different, who may have served that caregiver role. I guess maybe I should default to pick the healthiest one.

Jase: Sure. Yes. Try that.

Dedeker: Just to give myself a fighting chance.

Emily: I will say part of what we're discussing here is part of the criticism on attachment theory.

Dedeker: Sure. Makes sense.

Emily: There are many different potential caregivers out there that contribute to a child's life, and their overall wellbeing, the way in which they grow up, that it can be really difficult to know who is, and what is the reason why a person turns out the way that they turn out. All that being said, let's take the quiz, and we'll report back momentarily. Everyone, we are going to give you a little look underneath the Multiamory Podcast hood, the hood of the three of us, and--

Jase: I like the idea that we are the little pistons inside moving around. I'm imagining it's like a very old steam engine is what I'm picturing inside of this engine.

Emily: Got it. What were the results? I can go first if you want.

Jase: Sure, tell us.

Dedeker: Why don't you go first?

Jase: You teased it before.

Emily: All right. Okay, fine. Mine was anxious, preoccupied. Now, the most secure attachment that I have, and I'm not surprised, is that with my mother. Mine was very much like when it asked, am I worried about her abandonment or any of those things? It was all definitely not, and it was generally a very, very healthy relationship. I'm very much in the secure attachment quadrant of that. With my father, it asks the questions, "Are you worried that this person's going to abandon you?" I'm like, "That already happened. Yes, I don't know what to say there," but that puts me way up in the fearful avoidant attachment, which again is a little-- I don't find that to be particularly true.

I wish that I was able to go back and redo that section, but I do also think that that part made me more in the anxious, preoccupied spectrum of attachment in general, based on this quiz, just because of what I said about my father, whereas my partner, it's putting me-- and also overall general, it says score partner 5, score general anxiety 5, avoidant 2.7, avoidant 2. I'm a little bit more in the preoccupied attachment with my partner and generally, which is interesting too.

Dedeker: I feel like that tracks.

Emily: Yes. Self-sacrifice, putting the needs of others first, attentiveness to loved ones almost to a fault, others may end up taking advantage of this kind and generous nature because of this trait.

Dedeker: Geez, Emily, did you write that all about yourself?

Emily: No, I didn't. That's what it said about me and my attachment style. It's not wrong. I think it is true, but I guess part of me was like, "Aren't I a little bit closer to secure in all of these?" Maybe the answer is still no, but we're moving in that direction. How about the two of you?

Dedeker: Might I present a complete opposite portrait of a lady?

Emily: I can't wait to hear how this goes, please.

Dedeker: As I thought, this quiz put me pretty solidly in the dismissive avoidant quadrant.

Emily: None of mine are in that quadrant. Not even moving in that direction.

Dedeker: That's funny, because none of mine are in the preoccupied attachment quadrant whatsoever.

Emily: So funny.

Jase: Really? Interesting.

Dedeker: My relationship with my mother is the furthest in the dismissive avoidant quadrant.

Emily: Gracious.

Dedeker: Then my relationship with everybody else in the world is slightly lower, but in that same quadrant of being dismissive avoidant.

Emily: Interesting. That's amazing.

Dedeker: I know.

Emily: Wow.

Dedeker: Then the father figure that I chose to work with, again, I thought I'd pick the healthiest one, and I chose my grandfather.

Dedeker: Oh, that's nice.

Dedeker: That one's pretty solidly in the secure attachment quadrant, although it's a little bit higher up on the avoidant scale. Then I picked Jase for my romantic partner. That's also pretty solidly in the secure attachment quadrant.

Emily: That's good.

Dedeker: It's a little bit on the anxiety scale, which I think also tracks. I think that tracks from what I experienced. This is the slander it says about me: Displays of emotion, opening up to others, and expressing your feelings make you uncomfortable. When other people try to open up to you, you may minimize their emotional expressions. You dislike being dependent on others. You see yourself as self-sufficient and independent. Trust and dependency on others are difficult concepts for you. You prefer to create personal boundaries and rely on yourself. You may come across as aloof and distant to others. Do you really think I come across as aloof and distant to others?

Emily: Maybe initially.

Dedeker: No, of course I do. Emily, don't even try. I know. I am an ice queen. I am Elsa, who can't hit any flat, but still Elsa.

Jase: I do feel like that was my impression of you when I first met you, especially. It was much more aloof and standoffish. I don't feel that way about you now, but also-

Emily: I agree.

Jase: -I don't see you from the outside at all anymore.

Dedeker: You should talk to my newest partner about that.

Jase: Yes, I should ask him. He and I should have dinner and talk about that.

Emily: Definitely. "How do you find Dedeker?"

Jase: I should bring your attachment scores with me and be like, "Hey, let's review this together. Compare notes."

Emily: Oh, boy. Okay, Jase. I can't wait to see what this one is.

Jase: I actually ended up with anxious preoccupied like Emily. What I found interesting about it was, like Dedeker said, I chose Dedeker as my partner for the partner questions. That one's quite solidly in secure attachment.

Emily: That's awesome.

Jase: I'm getting a little bit toward the anxiety side. We share that.

Dedeker: I think we probably live in the same quadrant with each other.

Emily: Is that just how it is with partners? Are we always just a little bit anxious regardless of how long we've been together?

Dedeker: I don't want to take this on too much of a tangent.

Emily: Sure.

Dedeker: I want Jase to go through his whole slanderous report as well.

Emily: Definitely.

Dedeker: I don't know, I do spend a lot of time thinking about how does fully secure attachment with someone-- is that just one side of the coin, and then on the other side of that same coin is taking someone for granted?

Jase: That's what I feel. If there's no anxiety, to me, it feels like you're getting into that, "I'm not worried because I don't really care that much," or take it for granted.

Dedeker: Getting into, "I just assume you'll always be there, and so I don't have to feel anxious."

Emily: I think I've been in partnerships like that.

Dedeker: Yes, 100%. Anyway, I'm sure we'll chew on that more later.

Emily: Yes.

Jase: Yes. Then what was interesting for my other three, so for mother, father, and general, is that all of them were right close to the middle in terms of avoidant. A little more secure, a little under the halfway point for avoidant. All those, I'm a little more standoffish than I am with Dedeker, which again, not surprising, makes sense. I feel like there's certain things that I keep more private from other people and from my parents. That makes sense. That tracks.

There's this very clear spread on the anxiety axis, where with father, I have no anxiety. I'm all the way on the left side of the graph, which is interesting. I didn't expect that. Also, I feel like he's the one I'm the most avoidant with.

Emily: Oh, interesting.

Jase: I think maybe that's part of it, too. Then with my mother, it's a little more middling. With other people, with general people, I'm way over on the anxiety side. What was interesting too is that, in answering these, several of them, I was like, "Huh, do I give the answer that I would say is me a year ago, before getting on antidepressants and learning that about myself, versus now?" I would've been off the charts on those answers before.

That, to me, is interesting also, to see. Encouraging to go, "I would've been way further on this scale." Still, some of that's there, but I don't know how much is out of force of habit, knowing I have had those thoughts in the past, versus how much is actually the anxiety I feel about those relationships now, because I see that that's improved a lot.

Emily: Are you in fearful avoidant, or preoccupied, because it goes--

Jase: In the preoccupied side because my avoidant is relatively low overall. I tend to be fairly open-

Emily: Got it.

Jase: -when I do this podcast and talk about personal things. I feel like I have a certain amount of--

Dedeker: So do I, but that hasn't stopped me.

Jase: Sure. Okay, fair.

Emily: True.

Jase: Some slanderous statements here include such things as fear of rejection and criticism. May become highly upset at any form of disapproval.

Emily: I find that to be very true for you.

Dedeker: Yes, Jase.

Jase: Yes, very much so. That was the one that jumped out to me the most of the rest of these. There's struggles with being single or alone for periods of time. I don't think so, actually. I'm not sure that that's accurate for me. I don't know-

Emily: There might have been a time.

Jase: -how long of periods of time we're talking about.

Dedeker: There was definitely a period of time where that was-

Jase: For sure.

Dedeker: -a big point of contention in our early relationship.

Jase: Yes, definitely, but I don't think it would be now.

Dedeker: Not anymore. Now you're just like, "Please leave the house."

Emily: Yes. "Get out of here."

Dedeker: Please leave me alone so I can watch some shows.

Jase: Can you find some other partners to live with now? No, just kidding.

Emily: That was a fun diversion.

Dedeker: Was any of it true? There's this premise that maybe it's all BS.

Emily: Now, I find this to be really interesting. I guess I'll jump into this immediately. One of the reasons why I really wanted to do this episode is because I found that I exhibited dismissive behavior and avoidant behavior with my last partnership.

Dedeker: Oh, yes, you did.

Emily: I didn't realize it until I left that partnership and looked back at it and realized, "Whoa, he was saying that I was being dismissive and avoidant, and he was right." I didn't want to view it that way. I viewed it as very preoccupied and very anxious all the time. I was that too, but I felt like I was a lot more dismissive than I have been in the past. That's fascinating. That made me be like, "Wait a minute. Am I anxious and avoidant, or am I dismissive? Which one is it?"

I think the point is that we can contain multitudes, and that's why I don't know if just saying that you are this thing, you have this attachment style, is really, truly correct. It made me realize that maybe I exhibited more than one. That was a little alarming to me. It made me question, who the hell am I actually?

Jase: As if you contain multitudes, perhaps.

Emily: I suppose I do.

Dedeker: I can relate to that, because during the pandemic, there was one of my relationships, I got extremely anxious, way more anxiously attached than I normally operate clearly. There was not only I think the garden variety distress that comes with just relationship anxiety or attachment anxiety, but then there was that other layer, like you're talking about, Emily, the distress of, "Wait, this doesn't feel like me. This is not normally how I operate. This is not normally how I cope."

Emily: Absolutely.

Jase: As I was taking this test, something that really stood out to me when I'm answering some of these questions about my parents, for example, I kept thinking, "What are we talking about?" If there was a question like, I am comfortable being vulnerable with this person, or expressing my feelings or talking something through with this person, I'm like, "What are we talking about?

Am I talking about feeling stressed about work? Sure, yes, I can be vulnerable about that. Talk about my fears, talk about those things. Are we talking about my sexual identity and sexual preferences? Hell no. It's not a thing that I hide from my parents, per se, but it's not a thing I'm eager to talk to them about either. I did feel like it's a little bit of a weird-- but does that really have anything to do with how actually attached or not, or how secure I feel there? Does that actually track to then how I'd feel in my other relationships?

I think just seeing how the spread can be so wide between what I said for general people versus what I said for a partner, and I'm like, "This might be really different with another partner." With all of this, I'm like, "I think your answers are really going to vary depending on who the person is and what the situation is that you're thinking about." When we think about attachment styles in terms of our dating relationships, I think noticing patterns can be really useful just as a way to introspect ourselves. I am finding myself very resistant to this idea that I am this particular style, because I've seen that really vary.

You two have mentioned it, too, like, "Oh, with this one partner, I was really this other way. With this partner, I'm really this way." I think for me lately, just part of being busier or more stressed, I feel like I'm a lot more avoidant with new partners. I think that's a circumstance and not a personality trait. That's the thing that's coming up for me a lot more in this. I think all these concepts are really useful, and they're helpful to think about, but similar to how I feel about things like horoscopes or things like Enneagram or Myers-Briggs, I think they can be helpful tools to explore parts of ourselves.

I just don't always buy into this idea that you actually inherently are a certain type or a certain thing for whatever reason, the time of your birth, or your answers on a quiz.

Emily: Definitely. There have been certain criticisms that have come out, one by Judith Rich Harris. She did a paper and study published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences by the Cambridge University Press in 2009. Basically, she said that children aren't given enough credit in attachment theory and that their peers and their environment actually plays a larger role in development than their parents do. It is that interesting question of this nature versus nurture thing. I do think a lot of us come out a certain way.

I've heard new parents or people who are about to become parents talk about the fact that they're worried that their kid is going to come out and be like a little shit, and they're really scared about that. They're like, "You can't do anything about that," which I don't know what the answer to that is. I think sometimes, maybe, sure, some kids just suck, and some kids are great. I do think that that is something that can be navigated throughout the course of one's life, and you can certainly move a child in that direction or another. It also is based on the environment that they're in, the other adults that are a part of their lives, as well as their friends and their family.

Dedeker: I'm not a parent, so I'm not 100% on the pulse of this. What I see from a distance, being connected to parents, to people who are parents, is the content that's out there goes through this wave of, "You should be a helicopter parent. You really shouldn't be a helicopter parent. You're messing up your kid. You really should be paying attention to all these things and changing the way that you parent. No, no, no, you're a little bit helpless. You really shouldn't be caring that much." I think navigating that landscape as a parent is really disorienting and confusing.

Also speaks to the fact that, I think you're right, Emily, and I think the research backs this up, that there is still, at the end of the day, a certain amount of random chance that you can't actually influence. There is this aspect of nature that has a say in these things about how your child is going to turn out that you don't necessarily have the ability to completely control, and I think that's really scary. I think people find it more scary than they find it comforting.

Emily: Yes, and that's part of the criticism as well, is that from a biological standpoint, some kids are just going to come out a certain way. That attachment theory, on a whole, doesn't really account for that. It is just specifically accounting for a primary caregiver and the ways in which that child interacts with them from a very young age.

Jase: That that's always been the focus of it is on that early childhood. I was thinking about that thing, because I'd heard that before, too, that when it comes to your kids' decisions and the development of their personality, that after basically the age where they start going to some kind of school outside of the house and having a peer group, so starting around four or five, somewhere around that age, that basically the parents don't have much influence on that anymore. They maybe had some early on, but then it just gets taken over by your peer group, and that just continues as you grow older.

I was also thinking, I could imagine taking this attachment-style test right after I'd been to a queer men's group meet up and talk and really being vulnerable, and having other people be vulnerable, and caring for each other, versus coming from it after stressful meetings or after reading Instagram comments or some horrible thing like that. I could see it giving very different answers based on that context, too, which also lends to that, what's your environment you're in at the time, and how much of an impact that can have on how secure or anxious or avoidant you feel.

Dedeker: Even if we can embrace that and realize that, at least from a parent perspective, maybe you don't have complete control over how your kid is going to turn out, why do you think theories like this are so sticky for us?

Emily: Popular, you mean?

Dedeker: Yes. Sticky, like popular sticky. They stick around. People like them. We get a lot of joy out of taking the quiz.

Emily: I think that it's because it's really comforting to find a avenue in which you feel like, "Yes, this gets me. I get this. This feels like me. This feels really so much of who I am, and it makes me realize and understand parts of myself that maybe without this model, I wouldn't have understood before." It gives you a concrete, okay, if you are anxiously attached, it means that you do all of these things. All three of us found things within those canned answers that we agreed with. It doesn't show the whole nuance of who we are by any means, but I think that we did see things in there that resonated for us.

I guess it's easy to look at that and say, "Yes, that's who I am now. Therefore, because of that, I have things that I can do in order to move myself towards more secure attachment," for instance.

Jase: I would bet that some of this also comes from people wanting clear answers and something that you put on a sorting hat, and it tells you which attachment style you're in. There's something comforting about knowing, "Oh, I'm in this category," whether or not that's, "Oh, I'm in this category, and so that's what gives me tools and things to do to try to fix this," or that's like, "I'm in this category, so that's my excuse for anything I do." Regardless of how you use it, there is a certain comfort in being, "Oh, it's because I'm here."

Emily: It's identity.

Jase: Yes. Maybe it's a type of identity. It reminds me of a conversation we had a while back when I was talking about the therapist that I went to in college. It was the first time I ever went to a therapist on my own as an adult, and that I really wanted a diagnosis of some sort. I wanted a label. I wanted something like that, and he wouldn't give that to me. He was much more like, "No, let's focus on what are the things going on? What are you feeling? What are the outcomes you want? How can we get to that?"

I felt torn about it. I felt frustrated about it at the time. I think looking back on my life, there've been times where getting some kind of label or diagnosis of a concrete thing has been really helpful, but then there's other times where that's held me back or gotten me distracted or gotten in the way. I think this maybe appeals to some of that, though, of that, "I'll just get a clear answer at least. I do my Myers-Briggs. I do my Enneagram. I do my horoscope." There's always going to be something in there you resonate with.

You'll notice a lot of us skipped over the ones that were more boring or less interesting in our little reports we got at the end. That doesn't mean it's not valuable, but I think it's worth raising some suspicions about it.

Emily: Yes. I did want to go over a couple more of the criticisms. There was a critic, Elizabeth E. Stock, that asked the question, what if a parent dies or gets divorced over the course of a child's life? That would probably have a lot more lasting impact on the kid and what happens in terms of their attachment style than just the initial development that they had as a child. I think about, again, Dedeker, what you and I went through, or Jace, for that matter. You're a child of divorce as well, and of multiple parents, and multiple stepparents.

I had my father in my life for a short period of time, but since 2006, I haven't seen him. Therefore, those questions about abandonment or wondering, is this something that's going to affect my relationships? Absolutely. Now, when I was younger, I think he was involved in my life a little bit more, but it really is the later years that I think affected more deeply who I became in relationships and in my romantic relationships, especially, rather than the initial impact that he had on my life as a youth.

Dedeker: You know what they say. They say that you're the average of the five parents that raised you.

Emily: Maybe Jace is.

Dedeker: I think I am, too. Similar thing, my father died very young, and then sure, I've had a couple stepfathers, but those didn't really feel like attachment figures to me. It was other adults that became attachment figures. Yes, it does make some of this a little bit muddy and a little bit messy. Even at the same time that I can look at this result and be like, "Oh yes, that's totally me to a T. It makes perfect sense."

Emily: It is that dyadic model of attachment theory that a lot of people take issue with. That it is between the child and one primary caregiver. Which is strange also, because generally, at least in this nuclear family idea, there will be more than one primary caregiver. It's like, "Is it, I guess, the sum of the five caregivers, or the two, or the three that actually make up what your attachment style is, or is it actually just supposed to be between you and the primary one, whoever that might be?"

There's also cultural differences in parenting practices and attachment expressions. I think some parents may not be super cuddly with their kids. Does that develop more of anxious, or preoccupied, or dismissive, versus something else? It may be more of a bunch of people in the household, a bunch of extended family, for instance, and you may have different attachments with each of those people. My grandmother was involved in my life growing up. That very much was a slightly different attachment than my mother at the time. I think all of those things are something that is not necessarily talked about in attachment theory as we think of it today.

Dedeker: I feel like we haven't even really spent a ton of time on what I think is blaringly obvious to anyone listening, which is that these evaluations also assume you grow up and you only have one primary romantic attachment where these patterns are going to play out for you. That there is very little built into at least attachment theory as it was first formulated that accounts for this idea that not only might you choose to have multiple partners, but also you might express different attachment styles with each of those partners, or that even within those individual relationships, they may go through different phases.

Jase: Overall, with this, I know that there are going to be some people who are thinking like, "Yes, yes, yes, but attachment theories moved on since these criticisms came about." That it's not just about childhood anymore. I do think it still tends to a lot focus on that, even if there has been some research trying to do exactly what these criticisms are saying of how do we apply this further over someone's life? Again, with all of this, the point isn't to say, "Is this true or not? Is it good or not," but more to explore, like, "Hey, maybe this is a more nuanced topic and not just the answer to everything."

I was actually just listening to a therapy podcast, four therapists, the other day, and they had the guy on who created Internal Family Systems Therapy. In it, he was talking about how he'd come out of his education, specifically learning about Family Systems Therapy. Not Internal Family Systems Therapy, but this predecessor to that, I guess. He talked about coming out into the world, being like, "This is the solution to everything," and trying to apply it to everything. Seeing the places where it failed, actually, is part of what led him to the research that led to his new discoveries.

I think a lot of therapists, people who come out of school, probably can relate to that. A lot of counselors of like, "I got really into one thing and I thought it was the answer to everything for a while until eventually I realized, maybe that's not the perfect answer for everything."

Emily: That's probably the case for most things in general. I do wonder where do you two fall on the spectrum? Do you find it to be more bulshit or do you find it to be something that has been helpful within the way in which you talk to clients, for instance, Dedeker, or the way in which you think about your own development, Jase, or is it just another potential tool in the toolbox that you could pull out but don't necessarily use all the time?

Dedeker: I will choose once again to be insufferably Buddhist. If you're listening, you cannot complain. I have tried many times to warn y'all that I'm in this Buddhist psychology training program, and so this is my insufferable Buddhist chapter. You all have to deal with it.

Jase: Love it.

Dedeker: As the Buddhist said, don't confuse the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. I love that saying. I think it applies to so many situations and the way I think about it here is that understanding an attachment style abstractly or theoretically can be the finger pointing at the moon, because I think the ideal here is that we take this information and it moves us in a direction towards having the type of relationships we want to have with people. It moves us towards maybe wanting to heal attachment injuries that occurred with your caregivers.

That's not a path everybody might choose, but for some people, they may realize in their adulthood, "Actually, I want to re-meet my caregivers as an adult and forge a relationship differently. Forge a relationship that's not based on the attachment wounds that I picked up over the years," or ideally, this information is moving you in a direction of feeling more secure or showing up in a more secure way.

I think for myself, it's knowing what I've known for a long time based on this framework, that I tend towards avoidance. I know that I have to be aware of that whenever I'm in relationship. I know that I have to consciously choose opening up, being vulnerable, being emotionally intimate, and that I have to consciously choose being able to receive that from other people. I try my best to not over-identify with what my attachment style allegedly is and embrace the real, bona fide moon that is good relationships there. That's the end of my dharma talk. You're welcome.

Jase: I can tell that you're in that training because you also had that very Buddhist teaching cadence to your-

Dedeker: Oh no.

Jase: -speech. A little bit slower, very thoughtful way of presenting.

Emily: Indeed. Yes.

Dedeker: Oh, I have not. I have yet to drop full Buddhist teacher breathy voice. That's still in development. You haven't seen my final form yet.

Jase: Good.

Emily: She's going to be levitating every opposite. Got it.

Jase: To answer your question, Emily, for me, for quite a while, I think the concepts are interesting, but I have found that I've never really strongly identified with wanting to use the attachment styles terminology as a shorthand for communicating something. What I do feel like resonates with me more is this idea of thinking about anxiety. Essentially, like how much do I worry about certain things in certain relationships, and then thinking about avoidance. How much am I willing to be vulnerable? How much am I willing to approach in different sorts of relationships?

I have found those two things, almost independently, have been helpful for me to think about on my journey of like, "I feel like I'm holding myself back right now. Why is that? Is there something about this person that's causing me to do that, or is it something else going on in my life?" Then also with how much am I fearful about this person not actually liking me as much? Whether that's a coworker, or a friend, or a partner. That thinking, I think, is helpful to get a sense that there could even be a scale there. I think some people might, without having something like attachment styles, just go, "That must be how everybody is."

The way I feel right now is the way I will always feel forever, for example. I think having these kinds of scales are helpful to show there's a wider world that you could be existing in, and you probably do exist in at different points in your life. I think this is a good segue as we come back into what are the things that we do appreciate about it. That's what we're going to end this episode with, some reasons why this could be really helpful for you.

Emily: We've gone through some of the criticisms of attachment theory, even our own personal biases regarding attachment theory in general, but it is still seen as this important tool to give people, I think a lot of clarity on the reasons behind why they attach in specific ways to specific people and the behavior that they exhibit when they're in relationships. I know for myself, sometimes I do get very anxious. I get preoccupied when my partner hasn't texted me back in a certain amount of time, for instance.

This kind of framework at least gives me a touchstone as to why that is happening. Some of the reasons perhaps behind what is happening internally, and maybe can push me in a direction of being like, "Okay, you're being a little bit of an anxious attachment person right now. Let's maybe try to move into more secure attachment," which is something that I feel like I've been trying to do recently. I do find that the framework of non-monogamy can be really helpful in allowing us to create more secure attachments.

I'm not saying that that's the case for absolutely every person, but there is something really lovely about the opportunity to be an individual that has relationships with multiple people that may have different types of attachment styles as well, and using those opportunities to see what your attachment is to each of them, and then hopefully finding more secure attachments overall, or people that can help move you into the space of security.

I have found that not having to rely on a person who I live with, for instance all the time for absolutely everything, absolutely all of my emotional needs, and relying on myself a little bit more for that has pushed me, I would like to think more into the realm of security. I'm getting secure with myself and with my own ability to be internally okay and not as preoccupied that I have to get absolutely everything from this one individual or from these multiple individuals, instead, I can get it from within. I think that non-monogamy can give us that and can teach us that because sometimes our partners are going to be with someone else, and sometimes our partners are not going to be available to us.

It's allowing us the opportunity to flex that muscle more than maybe if our partner was just around us at all times, and we constantly had this opportunity to rely on them in a specific way.

Dedeker: I think that's for certain an argument-- it's so funny because I don't even know if it's necessarily an argument that's pro non-monogamy. It's just pointing out that if you're non-monogamous, and I think especially if you're polyamorous, you probably will be forced to develop some more secure attachment with oneself as well. Hopefully, it also pushes you towards feeling empowered to create secure attachments with other people as well, but at the very least, you will be put into a situation where you'll have to sink your swim as far as your attachment to yourself.

Emily: That's the thing that I wish that that quiz actually spoke about a little bit more, and I'm not exactly sure how it would. The attachment to oneself, I think, would be a really interesting thing to explore in a quiz. Like, what is your attachment style to self? I don't know if one could create a quiz like that. I would be curious to know what that would entail, I suppose. This website that we've been talking about, the website that the attachment style quiz was on, and a website where I got some of this information from was The Attachment Project.

They actually have quite a lot on there about non-monogamous relationships and attachment styles. A lot of people out there believe that if somebody is in a non-monogamous relationship, that means that they are just inherently avoidant of commitment, of somebody wanting to be fully attached, so that they're just playing the field and not interested in committed relationships in general.

There is an article on The Attachment Project called Reconceptualizing Attachment Theory Through the Lens of Polyamory. This was published in Sexuality & Culture magazine in July 2021. It's also talking about how romantic attachment in adults is mostly understood through the lens of monogamous adults, and that changes need to be made in order to accommodate the non-monogamous community. This says, "The attachment literature describes those who exhibit dimensions of avoidant attachment as desiring multiple relationships with little emotional depth and commitment.

However, empirical research illustrates that polyamorous individuals are predominantly securely or anxiously attached. Securely attached individuals are better able to communicate about intimate subjects, which often occurs in polyamory, while anxiously attached individuals thrive in an environment where intimacy is plentiful." That's very interesting.

Dedeker: That seems like that tracks.

Emily: Yes.

Jase: Yes. It really drives home that idea that even amongst researchers who don't understand non-monogamy, their closest parallel is, "Oh, it's like just dating." It's just casually dating where you're forced to keep everybody at arm's length. Just that that assumption can lead you to go, "Uh, well, then this must be the case," but then, if you actually look at the attachment styles, you'll see it's not, which, in this case, I think is great because it led them to question, "Oh, why is that?" Oh, actually, when we look at it more closely, that makes sense that there would be more secure or more even anxious attachment rather than avoidant attachment, which is interesting.

Emily: Yes. Research has shown that people are no more or less likely than their monogamous counterparts to be either insecurely attached or avoidantly attached. They provided this interesting take for disorganized attachment people. They said, "Ethical non-monogamy could potentially be an interesting solution for disorganized attachers.This is because they can have different partners to fulfill their emotional needs uniquely." That's really fascinating.

Jase: Yes, that's interesting.

Emily: Moreover, we can have different attachment cells with different partners, so we can potentially work towards healthier attachment with each partner. For example, a disorganized attacher could have one partner that helps them feel more comfortable with intimacy and closeness and another partner who helps them see what a healthy distance can really look like in a relationship. That's pretty cool. I like that idea.

Dedeker: That is interesting. I want to swoop in and be the voice of dissent-

Emily: Of course.

Dedeker: -in saying that, I do think that that sounds solid, and also sometimes I think in reality, it doesn't always work out that way. I don't know, I think if you're disorganized attached, chances are high that both the gas and break behaviors probably show up in all of your relationships. Although, of course, the outcome is probably different depending on what the attachment style is of the other person that you're engaged with. I guess I could see it maybe playing out that way, where it feels like the direction of attachment energy in the relationship is a little bit different in each one because of that.

Jase: It's funny when you zoom out and look at it from the outside, where we've talked before about how media portrayals of polyamory and non-monogamy tend to go this route of it's everyone's always in one big-- they all live together, they're all sexual with each other. They're all in a relationship together, and that's the thing that's exciting and thrilling, and we can understand it, I guess. Then I feel like we can also sometimes fall on the other side when we're trying to be so logical about non-monogamy, and then we can fall into that where it's like, each partner fulfills a different thing, and that's how you get all of your needs met and all of that.

I feel like that's also like you're pointing out Dedeker, an oversimplification, where yes, but your attachment style or just the way you are anxious, and the changes in your life are going to affect all of those most likely. While yes, there might be some individual tangible things that are different in different relationships, like Dedeker going camping with any partner that's not me, is great. That's cool

Dedeker: Does it help you feel more secure?

Jase: I think it's more about you getting your needs met in different ways.

Emily: Wait, you like camping, Dedeker? I know Jase hates that idea.

Dedeker: I think, just compared to Jase, I seem like a camping fanatic when really I think I'm maybe neutral to slightly positive about camping.

Jase: Sure. There you go. Anyway, it's like while that can happen on this micro scale, I think sometimes we can over exaggerate how I guess clinical or mathematical it's like, "Oh, this partner fills five slots out of my seven available slots of sex, and this person fills two. Then they fill four of my available slots of emotional intimacy or vulnerability or whatever," that it's not really that cut and dry either.

Emily: I will say that multiple times throughout this episode, we haven't really kept it to just purely, okay, these are the bad things about attachment theory, and these are the good things. We've talked about the pros and cons throughout the course of this episode. I think something that we talked about earlier is the fact that it creates a sense of identity for people to say, "Okay, and I am this thing, and I am able to understand more clearly why it is that I am choosing to interact with a partner in this specific way."

I was thinking about the two of you throughout the course of your relationship, and it feels like there was the potential for more dismissive or avoidance and more preoccupied or anxious attachment between the two of you once upon a time. Now you've both moved more into this securely attached place. Can we talk a little bit about why you think that is?

Dedeker: Boof, boof, boof, boof.

Emily: I'm interested because I would like to get there as well. I will say that the two of you also have been together forever. That probably either it's going to go more in one direction or it's going to become more secure, or maybe ideally.

Dedeker: Have you ever considered starting a podcast with every partner you ever have, because--

Emily: I'm pretty sure I will never do that again.

Dedeker: I joke. I do think that's helped with myself and Jase. These topics, not just attachment theory, but all the building blocks that go into a relationship and that go into creating a secure attachment, it's been a constant ongoing conversation or relationship, both on a microphone and off of a microphone. I think that's helped a lot. Ultimately, I will say, I don't actually think that you should go start a podcast with your partner unless both of you are really into that.

Jase: I actually don't recommend it.

Dedeker: I do think it's important to have a shared vocabulary, though, and it doesn't have to be about using formal attachment language. I've tried to do that with a previous partner who is just so not into thinking about it in this way. Obviously, that didn't really work out so great as far as the two of us trying to create something that felt good or felt more secure. I think that's really the more important thing is when you're negotiating with a partner or talking to a partner about these things, it doesn't have to be in this particular language. I think it just really has to be about I can be vulnerable, you can be vulnerable, we can share the lessons we learned about relationships that were given to us by our caregivers.

We can share the way that we want to feel in our relationships and we can negotiate about what the two of us can do together and individually to move us in that direction.

Emily: I love that.

Jase: I think time is a big part of it, too. I think time, and I would say in my case at least, I think also getting more comfortable with non-monogamy, because there is a lot to unlearn when you go from assuming monogamy all of your life as that's the only option, and that's the only way people think about relationships. That it can take, in my experience, many years to gradually peel those away, and sometimes things will come up that surprise you. I think for me at least, has been a combination of that as well as time and being very proactive in communicating.

We talk about radar a lot as something that we recommend for people, but I think sometimes we don't mention often enough that we started doing agile scrum, which became radar in our relationships for a year before we ever talked about it on the show. That was back in 2016, 2017, something like that. It's been a long time of actually regularly doing that in our own relationships, as well as the three of us doing a structure similar to that for our company meetings for a long time.

It's like being really proactive and continuous of not just occasionally having a big talk, but regularly checking in, I think has gone a really long way to feeling secure overall because it's like you don't have as many of those experiences of, "This has changed from under me and I didn't know about it," because you're more actively being involved in that. I think that feeling can lead to a lot more insecurity when it feels like, "This is unpredictable, I don't really know where it's at, I don't actually know what my partner's feeling at any moment." You can never get rid of that completely because we're not inside of their brain.

I do think that checking in more regularly just gives you more of a chance to feel like you actually are connected to what's going on in your relationship and that it can gradually evolve and shift over time.

Emily: I will say something that I have felt more secure about recently is having conflict with a partner. In my last big relationship, anytime conflict would arise, it created an extremely volatile situation that even though I had all of what I thought were really good tools at my disposal, it didn't seem to ever really matter. I think that that contributed to even more anxious attachment and then even more sometimes dismissive behaviors or avoidant behaviors. Trying to avoid difficult conversations or difficult situations in order to not put myself in that volatile, scary, at times, place again.

Something that I've been able to do with my current partnership is have conversations that are a little bit vulnerable and a little bit scary and a little bit intense at times. Every single time that I've had those conversations with this person, it's gone really well. I said that to him recently, I think a couple days ago. I was like, "I just want to acknowledge this is so different for me, and it means a lot."

Jase: That's great.

Dedeker: That's also huge. I think a lot of our attachment wounds get healed in relationship. A lot of it doesn't come from just sitting down reading the books or wielding ourselves into something that feels more secure. I think that you sharing that is total proof positive.

Emily: There is the case for I guess.

Dedeker: If people want to know more about this and specifically about how attachment theory can intersect with non-monogamy, of course we highly recommend Jessica Fern's book Polysecure. It's an excellent resource for that. Jessica has this wonderful hearts framework that really clearly lays out different strategies that you can adopt in order to create a little bit more of a sense of security. She also has this really cool nested model of trauma, and how that influences somebody's attachment style. You can also go listen to our interview that we did with Jessica way back in episode 291 titled Attachment Theory and Polyamory.

Jase: I think that in talking about this and what Emily was just sharing, it does show that I think the reason why this is sticky is not just that it gives us labels, but also it does touch on something that's deep, something that's important and something that really matters, that is important. That feeling of being seen, of being safe, of being able to be vulnerable, that is so essential and so important to have in our lives and in our relationships of all different types, not just our romantic ones.

As much as I have complained about some things that I don't like about attachment theory, I do think that the core of what it's trying to get at is really valuable and something that is important in our lives and something that hopefully, however you're practicing your relationships, the fact that you are here listening to this episode means you're invested in this and you care about these topics. I think that's a great place to start.