The Childhood Trauma That Shaped Your Attachment Style Without Consent
Beneath the Surface Journal • Self → Relationships
The Childhood Trauma That Shaped Your Attachment Style Without Consent
How early protection becomes adult pursuit, withdrawal, pleasing, control—and the possibility of repair.
From inherited protection toward conscious connection.
Watch first
You did not choose the first relationship rules you learned.
This 60–90 second introduction frames attachment style as a pattern of protection, not a permanent identity.
Open article menu
You may not describe what happens in your relationships as an attachment pattern. You may say that you care too much, need too much reassurance, go quiet when conflict begins, become painfully literal, explain yourself until you are exhausted, agree before you know what you feel, or disappear into work, sleep, scrolling, sex, caretaking, or emotional distance.
You may know that your partner is not the person who first hurt you and still feel your body preparing for abandonment, criticism, engulfment, punishment, or the loss of control.
The relationship in front of you may be current. The rule organizing your reaction may be much older.
Attachment language offers one way to understand that gap. In attachment theory, people form expectations about whether closeness, support, autonomy, and repair will be available when a bond feels important or threatened (Bowlby, 1982; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). The framework can make an invisible pattern visible, but it should not reduce a complex person to one category.
The phrase “without consent” is intentional and rhetorical. A child does not choose the first relational environment that teaches whether needs are welcome, whether love is predictable, whether a boundary will be respected, whether conflict will be repaired, or whether separation means someone will return.
You did not consent to those first lessons. That does not mean you are permanently governed by them.
At a glance
Four ideas to hold before going deeper.
Adult attachment is better understood as flexible dimensions and relationship-specific expectations than as a permanent personality type (Fraley et al., 2015; Fraley & Roisman, 2019).
Abuse can shape attachment, and so can neglect, emotional unavailability, inconsistent care, and accumulated relational risk (Cyr et al., 2010; Widom et al., 2018).
A person who prefers honest conversation when regulated may become nonverbal, agreeable, literal, defensive, delayed, or withdrawn under relational threat (Simpson & Rholes, 2017).
Mismatch is inevitable; accountability, reliable return, and changed behavior can make connection more workable over time. Developmental and psychotherapy research both underscore the importance of repair, although they study different relationships (Eubanks et al., 2018; Tronick & Beeghly, 2011).
The relational system
Attachment is an expectation system, not a personality quiz.
Attachment theory began as a framework for understanding how children use caregivers for safety and exploration and was later extended to adult romantic bonds (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowlby, 1982; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). The attachment system becomes especially active when connection feels important and uncertain.
- Will you come closer when I need you?
- Can I depend on you without losing myself?
- Will my need be welcomed, ignored, criticized, or used against me?
- Can I say no without losing the relationship?
- Can you be upset with me and still remain connected?
- When we rupture, do we return?
A more secure pattern is not a state of never needing reassurance, never feeling jealous, never wanting space, or never becoming activated. Security is better understood as greater flexibility: access to support without surrendering autonomy, capacity to tolerate manageable uncertainty, and an ability to use present information during stress (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016; Simpson & Rholes, 2017).
People can show different attachment patterns in different relationships.
A person may feel relatively secure with a reliable friend, anxious with an inconsistent romantic partner, avoidant with a critical parent, and conflicted in a relationship that combines longing with danger. Research supports both general tendencies and relationship-specific attachment orientations (Fraley et al., 2015; Fraley & Roisman, 2019). Context, power, history, culture, neurotype, and the other person’s actual behavior matter.
Where attachment becomes visible
Relationships are organized in ordinary moments.
Attachment is not only revealed during a breakup, betrayal, or major conflict. It is built and activated through repeated exchanges of time, attention, influence, caregiving, reliability, and repair (Simpson et al., 2007; Tronick & Beeghly, 2011).
“We will talk later.”
Without a clear return time, one partner may hear a pause while another person’s nervous system hears abandonment. Naming when the conversation will resume places a boundary around uncertainty.
Leaving before the message lands.
Sending a quick statement while running out the door may feel efficient to one person and erasing to another. The impact may be: “There was no room for me to exist in this exchange.”
Being heard changes the shared space.
Listening becomes more believable when understanding affects what happens next. Caregiving research also suggests that people differ in which forms of support are regulating under stress (Simpson et al., 2007).
Small promises become attachment data.
Remembering a request, returning when agreed, checking in after intensity, or changing a repeated behavior gives the relationship new evidence about whether communication produces a real response.
Trust is not created only by being told that you matter. It is strengthened when the relationship repeatedly behaves as though you do.
What shaped the first map
Childhood trauma includes what happened—and what never came.
Trauma can involve clear acts of harm: physical abuse, sexual abuse, intimidation, humiliation, violence, coercion, unpredictable punishment, exposure to frightening conflict, or repeated boundary violation. Maltreatment is strongly associated with lower attachment security and greater attachment disorganization in childhood samples (Cyr et al., 2010).
It can also involve omission: comfort that never arrived, emotion that could not be spoken, affection withheld as punishment, a caregiver who remained physically present but emotionally unavailable, repeated distress that no adult helped organize, or rupture that was never followed by repair. Prospective research has linked documented childhood neglect and physical abuse with adult attachment anxiety, and neglect with avoidance as well (Widom et al., 2018).
Two 2026 meta-analyses strengthen this association while also showing why it should not be treated as destiny. A three-level review of 228 independent samples found small-to-moderate associations between childhood maltreatment and both adult attachment anxiety and avoidance, with substantial variation across studies (Li et al., 2026). A separate review focused on childhood sexual abuse likewise found associations with both dimensions and substantial heterogeneity (Pastor-Cerezo & Iborra Cuéllar, 2026). Association does not mean that every survivor develops the same pattern or that attachment is determined by one experience.
Children often cannot conclude, “My caregiver lacks capacity, support, regulation, or emotional maturity.” They may instead build a self-referencing explanation:
Those conclusions can become protective rules. A rule may preserve connection in childhood and later create suffering when it is applied automatically to adult relationships that require a different response.
A child may learn to pursue, please, control, withdraw, or disappear.
- Pursue: stay close enough to prevent loss.
- Please: become agreeable enough to prevent anger or rejection.
- Control: predict enough to prevent surprise, chaos, or helplessness.
- Withdraw: need less so disappointment cannot reach as deeply.
- Disappear: freeze, numb, detach, or become invisible when no safe action feels possible.
The gold thread
How an early experience becomes a present-day relationship pattern.
The map below is not a formula that explains every person. It traces one possible thread from experience, to expectation, to automatic protection, to a more chosen response.
Early Experience
Care is inconsistent, critical, intrusive, absent, frightening, or unavailable during distress.
Protective Rule
“I must monitor closeness,” “I cannot depend on anyone,” or “I must stay agreeable.”
Adult Pattern
Pursuit, protest, overexplaining, pleasing, control, emotional distance, shutdown, or rapid detachment.
Present Trigger
A delayed reply, changed tone, boundary, criticism, desire difference, conflict, or request for space.
Chosen Response
Name the activation, use the agreed pause, ask directly, hold a boundary, and return for repair.
The pattern becomes less powerful when it can be recognized before it becomes the only available response.
Common descriptions
Adult attachment patterns—held lightly, not used as verdicts.
Popular attachment language often uses four adult categories derived from models such as Bartholomew and Horowitz’s secure, preoccupied, dismissing, and fearful patterns (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Contemporary evidence indicates that adult attachment is usually measured more accurately along continuous dimensions of anxiety and avoidance rather than as four sharply separated types (Fraley et al., 2015). The cards below are therefore orientation tools, not diagnoses.
Closeness and separateness can coexist.
May look like: asking directly, tolerating a partner’s independent mind, receiving care, saying no, and returning after manageable conflict.
Under stress: activation still occurs, but the person is more able to use present information and seek support without losing agency.
Growth direction: continued flexibility, accountability, and repair—not perfection (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).
Distance can feel more dangerous than conflict.
May protect against: inconsistency, emotional unpredictability, or the fear that connection disappears when attention shifts.
Under stress: pursuit, repeated checking, protest, urgency, overexplaining, reassurance-seeking, or reading ambiguity as rejection.
Growth direction: direct requests, time-bounded pauses, internal regulation, reliable follow-through, and tolerating space that has a clear return (Simpson & Rholes, 2017).
Dependence can feel more dangerous than distance.
May protect against: rejection, engulfment, criticism, unmet need, or the humiliation of reaching for care that does not arrive.
Under stress: deactivation, minimization, intellectualizing, disappearing into tasks, delayed response, emotional shutdown, or treating need as weakness.
Growth direction: naming capacity before withdrawal, asking for space without severing connection, receiving influence, and returning when agreed (Simpson & Rholes, 2017).
The same relationship can activate longing and danger.
May protect against: closeness repeatedly paired with betrayal, shame, coercion, chaos, or fear.
Under stress: approach-and-withdraw cycles, rapid shifts, freezing, fawning, collapse, dissociation, distrust, or fear of both abandonment and engulfment.
Growth direction: slower pacing, explicit consent, predictable structure, differentiation, trauma-informed support, and repeated experiences of repair without coercion (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
Terminology note: Adult fearful or fearful-avoidant attachment is not interchangeable with the infant disorganized/disoriented classification developed for the Strange Situation (Duschinsky & Solomon, 2017; Main & Solomon, 1990). They come from different measures and levels of analysis. Adult attachment research also increasingly favors anxiety and avoidance dimensions over fixed type labels (Fraley et al., 2015).
Attachment patterns are descriptive frameworks, not mental health diagnoses. Temperament, neurodivergence, culture, disability, current relationship conditions, later experiences, and ongoing stress can all shape how a person relates.
Preparation before activation
Your communication preference when regulated may not be your communication capacity when stressed.
Many couples discuss how they prefer to communicate and never discuss what happens when the attachment system is activated. Relational stress can amplify attachment anxiety and avoidance and alter support-seeking, caregiving, conflict behavior, and interpretation of a partner (Simpson et al., 1996; Simpson & Rholes, 2017). Language, timing, memory, sensory processing, and the ability to disagree can also change for many reasons.
Wants direct conversation and emotional presence.
Words may disappear even when the person still cares and wants connection.
Use a hand signal, written card, or phrase that means pause—not consent, punishment, or abandonment—and schedule the return.
Wants to be generous, flexible, and relational.
Fawning may look like consent while the nervous system is trying to preserve the bond.
Do not treat rapid agreement under activation as the end of the conversation. Recheck after regulation and private processing time.
Can usually hold several perspectives at once.
Complex language, implication, sarcasm, or long explanations may become impossible to organize.
One issue, one request, one boundary, and one return time. Write it down when delayed processing is part of the pattern.
Feels connected through touch, talking, or shared space.
Continued contact may feel like pressure rather than care.
Agree on whether touch is welcome, how long the pause will last, and who will initiate reconnection.
Consent, conflict plans, and aftercare work best when they are designed before the nervous system loses access to its usual language.
The separate part of practice
Boundaries allow two people to join without becoming one person.
A boundary is not automatically rejection, withholding, punishment, or emotional distance. At its healthiest, a boundary clarifies where one person ends, where another begins, and what belongs in the shared space between them. Family-systems concepts of differentiation similarly emphasize maintaining a coherent self while remaining emotionally connected (Bowen, 1978; Skowron & Friedlander, 1998).
A differentiated relationship can hold four realities at the same time:
- What belongs to me: my body, emotions, values, limits, meaning, and decisions.
- What belongs to you: your body, emotions, values, limits, meaning, and decisions.
- What belongs to us: agreements, shared responsibilities, relational impact, and repair.
- What no one can decide for another: consent, identity, internal experience, or the surrender of basic autonomy.
Separate does not mean disconnected.
You can love someone and remain your own person. You can take influence without surrendering your internal compass. You can hold a boundary and still participate in connection. The goal is not distance; it is intimacy without self-erasure.
More than two circles
Attachment does not become less relevant in polyamory. It becomes more explicitly systemic.
Attachment theory is often explained through a two-person image. Real relationship systems may include multiple partners, metamours, co-parents, chosen family, nesting relationships, long-distance bonds, comets, or other consensually negotiated structures. Research does not support treating CNM itself as evidence of poorer psychological well-being or relationship quality (Rubel & Bogaert, 2015).
Every person remains a whole circle. Every connection has its own thread.
A polycule is not one undifferentiated relationship. Research comparing partners within polyamorous systems finds that relationship experiences can differ across primary and secondary bonds and across specific dyads (Balzarini et al., 2017; Balzarini et al., 2019; Moors et al., 2019). One study found that attachment insecurity with a specific partner was associated with poorer functioning in that relationship rather than uniformly across all concurrent relationships. Each bond may therefore carry different intimacy, commitment, access, responsibility, privacy, and attachment activation, while the wider system still requires shared agreements.
Polyamory is not evidence of insecure attachment. Monogamy is not evidence of secure attachment.
Security is reflected in consent, differentiation, honesty, reliability, autonomy, responsiveness, and repair—not in the number of people within the structure. Affirming clinical care also requires avoiding the harmful practice of assuming CNM is the cause of every presenting problem (Schechinger et al., 2018).
The bridge into power
Power exists in every relationship. Kink makes some of it explicit.
All relationships contain power: who initiates, who waits, whose schedule dominates, who has financial access, who defines the problem, whose discomfort ends the conversation, and whose interpretation becomes the official story.
Consensual kink and BDSM can make certain power dynamics deliberate, negotiated, bounded, and visible. Reviews find little support for treating BDSM interests as inherently pathological or as evidence of childhood trauma (Brown et al., 2020; Wismeijer & van Assen, 2013). That does not make every BDSM interaction healthy; assessment still turns on consent, capacity, voluntariness, impact, and the ability to withdraw.
Submission is not automatically fawning. Dominance is not automatically pathological control.
The clinical questions are about function, consent, context, capacity, choice, impact, and repair. Can no be heard? Can yes change? Can a person pause without punishment? Does the role expand agency, or does fear make disagreement impossible? Clinical reviews emphasize affirming, nonpathologizing assessment while distinguishing consensual BDSM from abuse (Dunkley & Brotto, 2018; Dunkley & Brotto, 2020).
Attachment awareness becomes practical here. A person who fawns under threat may need more than a verbal safeword. A person who becomes nonverbal may need a prearranged signal. A partner who shuts down after intensity may need solitude before verbal aftercare, while another person may need reliable confirmation that distance is temporary. Consent is central to BDSM, but the existence of negotiation language does not eliminate the need to assess coercion or consent violations. Recent research describes BDSM-community consent norms as strong but not inflexible, reinforcing the need to assess actual behavior rather than rely on community language alone (Dunkley & Brotto, 2020; Tarleton et al., 2025).
The developmental sequence
Secure attachment is not the absence of rupture. It is the growing expectation that repair is possible.
Every relationship contains missed cues, disappointment, limits, divided attention, misunderstanding, and moments when one person cannot immediately meet the other. Developmental work describes how repeated mismatch and repair contribute to meaning-making, while psychotherapy research links successful alliance rupture repair with better treatment outcomes (Eubanks et al., 2018; Tronick & Beeghly, 2011). These literatures do not prove that every romantic rupture is beneficial; they support the narrower point that rupture is not the same as irreversible relational failure.
Connection → disruption → repair → growth
The relationship communicates that difficult feelings can occur, limits can be survived, and connection can return without requiring the child—or adult—to erase their experience.
Connection → disruption → no repair → defense
Shame, fear, anger, or grief remain unorganized. The nervous system may learn that rupture means abandonment, punishment, collapse, escalation, or the need to become invisible.
Activation → awareness → responsibility → reconnection
The pattern becomes visible, each person regulates enough to participate, impact is named, behavior changes, and the relationship builds new evidence that disruption does not have to become destruction.
Repair can include:
- naming what happened without rewriting the other person’s experience;
- distinguishing intention from impact;
- taking responsibility without collapsing into shame or counterattack;
- asking what would restore safety, dignity, or clarity;
- changing the repeated behavior rather than relying on apology alone;
- allowing time for trust to update at the speed of lived evidence.
Not every rupture means rejection. Not every limit means abandonment. Not every difference requires self-erasure.
Boundaries around the framework
What attachment language should not become.
Not a diagnosis
Attachment categories are descriptive frameworks and should not be used to clinically diagnose a partner from social-media content.
Not fixed destiny
Early relationships matter, but they do not determine adult outcomes. Later relationships, development, therapy, and context can alter attachment expectations (Fraley & Roisman, 2019).
Not an excuse for harm
Fear of abandonment does not excuse coercion, surveillance, threats, or boundary violation. Avoidance does not excuse chronic disappearance or contempt.
Not proof of childhood trauma
An attachment pattern may reflect many influences. A person does not need a dramatic trauma narrative for current relational needs to matter.
Not limited to monogamy
Attachment needs exist across monogamous, polyamorous, CNM, queerplatonic, chosen-family, and other relationship systems (Rubel & Bogaert, 2015).
Not solved by a perfect partner
Relational reliability matters, but no partner can permanently regulate another person, eliminate every trigger, or substitute for individual support.
Attachment language should never be used to persuade someone to remain in coercion, violence, stalking, sexual pressure, or ongoing abuse. When safety is compromised, the priority is not better couple communication; it is individualized safety planning and appropriately specialized support.
From pattern to choice
How does an attachment pattern become more flexible?
Healing does not require becoming a person who never needs, never protects, never becomes activated, or never makes a relational mistake. It involves expanding the number of responses available when the old rule is triggered. Research on adult attachment development emphasizes both continuity and change rather than deterministic prediction from childhood (Fraley & Roisman, 2019).
That work may include:
- learning to recognize body cues before the pattern becomes a full relational emergency;
- separating present behavior from old expectation without dismissing either;
- building tolerance for need, closeness, difference, pleasure, anger, and appropriate separation;
- practicing direct requests instead of protest, testing, disappearing, or automatic agreement;
- developing boundaries that preserve connection without sacrificing autonomy;
- processing traumatic memories, beliefs, or body responses when they continue to organize the present;
- creating future plans for how partners will pause, communicate, reconnect, and repair.
The memory, the protective strategy, and the relationship all matter.
Individual trauma therapy may address memories and survival beliefs. Relationship therapy may help partners recognize the cycle they co-create. EMDR may be considered when past experiences, present triggers, and anticipated future situations remain linked; it is not a protocol for assigning or converting an “attachment type” (Molero-Zafra et al., 2024; Shapiro, 2018).
For self-reflection or a planned conversation
Questions that make the pattern more visible.
- What does distance mean to me when I am calm—and what does it mean when I am activated?
- What happens in my body when someone changes tone, delays a response, sets a boundary, or asks for space?
- Do I tend to pursue, please, control, withdraw, become invisible, or shift between several strategies?
- What communication capacity do I lose under stress: speech, nuance, memory, disagreement, timing, or access to my own desire?
- What signal can mean “pause” without being confused with punishment, consent, or abandonment?
- What exact time frame helps a pause feel contained enough for both people?
- What boundary helps me remain connected to myself while staying in relationship?
- What does repair require beyond an apology: changed behavior, reassurance, accountability, time, or a new agreement?
- In a multi-partner system, which agreements belong to each relationship and which belong to the wider system?
- What new behavior could we practice before, during, and after activation so the agreement becomes lived experience?
The deeper purpose
The goal is not to blame the child you were or diagnose the adult you became.
The goal is to make the pattern visible enough that protection is no longer mistaken for personality, fate, or the only possible form of love.
The child who pursued may have been trying to keep connection alive. The child who pleased may have been preventing danger. The child who controlled may have been creating predictability. The child who withdrew may have been protecting a need that no one held safely. The child who disappeared may have survived by leaving internally when leaving physically was impossible.
Your first attachment rules were inherited without consent. Your next response can be practiced with awareness, boundaries, and choice.
Healing does not require contempt for the old strategy. It asks whether that strategy is still the only one allowed to speak.
Connection becomes different when you can remain present enough to know: this feeling is real, this pattern has a history, this person is not automatically the past, and I still have choices about what I consent to, what I communicate, what I repair, and what I refuse to abandon within myself.
Continue the opening collection
When relational power becomes deliberate, negotiated, and embodied.
Attachment patterns become especially visible wherever a relationship works consciously with authority, surrender, trust, limits, intensity, and repair. The next article moves from implicit power into consensual power exchange.
Your Attachment Style Did Not Stay at Home
A future article will examine how early survival patterns enter leadership, hierarchy, feedback, belonging, delegation, control, and organizational change.
Explore the relational work
Connection does not require self-abandonment.
Learn more about attachment, intimacy, relationship systems, trauma therapy, EMDR, CNM/polyamory-affirming care, and kink-aware psychotherapy in California.
About the author
Jillian Ellison, LMFT 156597
Jillian is an EMDRIA Certified Therapist™ providing trauma-focused psychotherapy to adults and relationship systems in California. Her clinical work includes complex and developmental trauma, attachment injury, intimacy, relational patterns, sexual trauma, protective parts, EMDR, and the Flash Technique.
Jillian is an AASECT Member and is enrolled in Modern Sex Therapy Institutes’ AASECT CST pathway. Membership and enrollment are not AASECT certification.
Review Jillian’s clinical authorityThis article is educational and is not individualized treatment, diagnosis, crisis support, relationship safety planning, or a substitute for consultation with a qualified healthcare professional. Attachment categories should not be used to diagnose another person or to explain away coercion, violence, stalking, sexual pressure, or ongoing abuse. Reading this article does not establish a therapist–client relationship.
References and further reading
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1980-50809-000
Balzarini, R. N., Campbell, L., Kohut, T., Holmes, B. M., Lehmiller, J. J., Harman, J. J., & Atkins, N. (2017). Perceptions of primary and secondary relationships in polyamory. PLOS ONE, 12(5), Article e0177841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177841
Balzarini, R. N., Dharma, C., Kohut, T., Campbell, L., Lehmiller, J. J., Harman, J. J., & Holmes, B. M. (2019). Comparing relationship quality across different types of romantic partners in polyamorous and monogamous relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(6), 1749–1767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1416-7
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Jason Aronson. https://murraybowenarchives.org/books/family-therapy-in-clinical-practice/
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books. (Original work published 1969). https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1982-59218-000
Brown, A., Barker, E. D., & Rahman, Q. (2020). A systematic scoping review of the prevalence, etiological, psychological, and interpersonal factors associated with BDSM. Journal of Sex Research, 57(6), 781–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1665619
Cyr, C., Euser, E. M., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2010). Attachment security and disorganization in maltreating and high-risk families: A series of meta-analyses. Development and Psychopathology, 22(1), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409990289
Dunkley, C. R., & Brotto, L. A. (2018). Clinical considerations in treating BDSM practitioners: A review. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 44(7), 701–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2018.1451792
Dunkley, C. R., & Brotto, L. A. (2020). The role of consent in the context of BDSM. Sexual Abuse, 32(6), 657–678. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219842847
Duschinsky, R., & Solomon, J. (2017). Infant disorganized attachment: Clarifying levels of analysis. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22(4), 524–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104516685602
Eubanks, C. F., Muran, J. C., & Safran, J. D. (2018). Alliance rupture repair: A meta-analysis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 508–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000185
Fraley, R. C., Hudson, N. W., Heffernan, M. E., & Segal, N. (2015). Are adult attachment styles categorical or dimensional? A taxometric analysis of general and relationship-specific attachment orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(2), 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000027
Fraley, R. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2019). The development of adult attachment styles: Four lessons. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.008
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
Li, S., Ma, Y., Cao, X., Liu, J., Qi, Y., & Chen, X. (2026). Childhood maltreatment and adult attachment: A three-level meta-analytic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380261455767
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 121–160). University of Chicago Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-98514-004
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. https://www.guilford.com/books/Attachment-in-Adulthood/Mikulincer-Shaver/9781462525546
Molero-Zafra, M., Fernández-García, O., Mitjans-Lafont, M. T., Pérez-Marín, M., & Hernández-Jiménez, M. J. (2024). Psychological intervention in women victims of childhood sexual abuse: A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing EMDR psychotherapy and trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15, Article 1360388. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1360388
Moors, A. C., Ryan, W., & Chopik, W. J. (2019). Multiple loves: The effects of attachment with multiple concurrent romantic partners on relational functioning. Personality and Individual Differences, 147, 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.023
Pastor-Cerezo, V., & Iborra Cuéllar, A. (2026). The association between childhood sexual abuse and adult attachment: A meta-analytic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380261439134
Rubel, A. N., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and relationship quality correlates. Journal of Sex Research, 52(9), 961–982. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.942722
Schechinger, H. A., Sakaluk, J. K., & Moors, A. C. (2018). Harmful and helpful therapy practices with consensually non-monogamous clients: Toward an inclusive framework. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86(11), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000349
Shapiro, F. (2018). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy: Basic principles, protocols, and procedures (3rd ed.). Guilford Press. https://www.guilford.com/books/Eye-Movement-Desensitization-and-Reprocessing-EMDR-Therapy/Francine-Shapiro/9781462532766
Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2017). Adult attachment, stress, and romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.006
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 899–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.899
Simpson, J. A., Winterheld, H. A., Rholes, W. S., & Oriña, M. M. (2007). Working models of attachment and reactions to different forms of caregiving from romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 466–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.466
Skowron, E. A., & Friedlander, M. L. (1998). The Differentiation of Self Inventory: Development and initial validation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45(3), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.45.3.235
Tarleton, H. L., Mackenzie, T., & Sagarin, B. J. (2025). Consent norms in the BDSM community: Strong but not inflexible. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 54(2), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-03038-6
Tronick, E., & Beeghly, M. (2011). Infants’ meaning-making and the development of mental health problems. American Psychologist, 66(2), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021631
Widom, C. S., Czaja, S. J., Kozakowski, S. S., & Chauhan, P. (2018). Does adult attachment style mediate the relationship between childhood maltreatment and mental and physical health outcomes? Child Abuse & Neglect, 76, 533–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.05.002
Wismeijer, A. A. J., & van Assen, M. A. L. M. (2013). Psychological characteristics of BDSM practitioners. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10(8), 1943–1952. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12192
APA 7 conventions are applied to source attribution, author–date citations, title capitalization, journal and book formatting, and the hanging-indent reference list. The article’s clinical examples and interpretive language are educational synthesis rather than quotations from the cited works.