Avoidant Attachment: Why They Pull Away

They pull away because closeness sets off a threat response, not because they stopped caring. Avoidant attachment is a style built around self-reliance, and when a relationship starts to deepen, an old alarm goes off saying that depending on someone is risky. The nervous system responds by manufacturing distance. That is the entire mechanism, and once you can see it working, most of the confusing behaviour stops being confusing.

This guide covers what the research actually shows, how to spot the pattern, and what to do if you're the one on the receiving end of the withdrawal. Because the hard part usually isn't understanding avoidant attachment. It's knowing what to do at 11pm when they've gone quiet again.

What Is Avoidant Attachment?

Avoidant attachment, often called dismissive-avoidant attachment, is one of the insecure styles described in attachment theory. At the centre sits a high value on independence and real discomfort with depending on anyone, or having anyone depend on you. Closeness reads less like comfort and more like a loss of freedom.

People with this style frequently look like the most secure person in the room. Independent, capable, unbothered, good in a crisis. The pattern only shows up where intimacy does. When a relationship asks for vulnerability, ongoing reassurance, or emotional need, an internal system switches on to create room. Mario Mikulincer and Phillip Shaver, whose 2016 textbook Attachment in Adulthood is the standard reference in the field, call these moves deactivating strategies, because they shut the attachment system down rather than letting it stay switched on and connected.

There's a useful way to picture what's going on underneath. Kim Bartholomew and Leonard Horowitz, writing in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 1991, mapped adult attachment onto two axes: how positively you view yourself, and how positively you view other people. Dismissive avoidance sits in the quadrant where the view of self stays positive and the view of others turns negative. That combination explains a lot. The self-sufficiency isn't a performance covering low self-esteem. They genuinely believe they're fine on their own, and they genuinely doubt that other people will come through.

How common is it? The benchmark figure comes from Mickelson, Kessler and Shaver's 1997 analysis of the National Comorbidity Survey, a nationally representative sample of American adults. They found roughly 59 percent secure, 25 percent avoidant, and 11 percent anxious. So about one in four adults leans avoidant. If you're dating one, you're not dealing with something rare.

That estimate held up when researchers went back with a fresh national sample. An analysis of the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, published in Psychiatry Research in 2015 and covering 5,645 American adults aged 18 and over, put the split at 63.5 percent secure, 22.2 percent avoidant, 5.5 percent anxious, and 8.8 percent unclassified. Different decade, different sample, roughly the same one in five. The same analysis found that people classed as insecure, anxious or avoidant, were more likely to have used a crisis line, sat through counselling, or been prescribed something for a mental health problem.

And the share appears to be growing. A cross-temporal meta-analysis by Konrath and colleagues, published in Personality and Social Psychology Review in 2014, pooled 94 samples of American college students totalling 25,243 people between 1988 and 2011. Dismissing attachment rose from 11.93 percent to 18.62 percent over that window, while secure attachment fell from 48.98 percent to 41.62 percent. The increase held even after controlling for age, gender, race, and publication status.

Which Kind of Avoidant Are You Dealing With?

There are two, they look almost identical from the outside, and the advice that helps one can land badly on the other. So this is worth five minutes before you try anything else.

Go back to the Bartholomew and Horowitz map from the last section. Two axes, view of self and view of others, four quadrants. Dismissive avoidance sits at positive self and negative other. But there's a fourth quadrant where both views turn negative, and that's fearful avoidance. Same withdrawing behaviour on the surface, completely different engine underneath.

The dismissive avoidant genuinely believes they're fine alone. The distance isn't a defence they're aware of, it's just their read on how relationships work. The fearful avoidant wants closeness badly and is frightened of it at the same time, so they move toward you and then bolt, often in the same week. If you've been told you're dealing with an avoidant but the hot and cold whiplash doesn't match anything you've read, this is usually why.

The two aren't just conceptually different. They come apart in the data. Shevlin, Boyda, Elklit and Murphy studied 445 bereaved parents, 254 women and 191 men, and published in the European Journal of Psychotraumatology in 2014. They sorted people into attachment classes statistically rather than assuming the categories held, and the dismissing class came out at 4.3 percent of the sample while the fearful class came out at 6.7 percent. Then the outcomes split hard. The fearful group scored significantly higher on every Trauma Symptom Checklist scale the researchers measured, including depression, anxiety, dissociation, sleep disturbance and somatisation. The dismissing group sat down near the secure group.

Read that again, because it's the thing most articles miss. Under real stress, dismissive avoidants look fine on the measures. Fearful avoidants don't. They're both avoiding, and only one of them is visibly suffering for it.

One more finding from that paper is worth carrying. Women were almost eight times more likely than men to land in the fearful class. Combine that with the lifespan data further down this guide, where men score higher on avoidance at every age, and you get a rough pattern: avoidance is more common in men, but the anxious flavour of it is more common in women.

How to tell which one you're looking at, in practice:

• Watch what follows the withdrawal. A dismissive avoidant pulls back and settles. A fearful avoidant pulls back and gets visibly distressed about having pulled back.
• Listen to how they explain it. "I need space" delivered flatly points dismissive. "I don't know why I do this" points fearful.
• Check for the return swing. Fearful avoidance usually comes with a pursuit phase. They come back warm, sometimes intensely so, and then the fear catches up.
• Notice their self-image. Dismissive avoidants tend to think well of themselves and poorly of relationships. Fearful avoidants often think poorly of both.

Why this changes what you do. With a dismissive partner, the work is mostly about reducing pressure and being predictable, which is what the rest of this guide covers. With a fearful partner, reducing pressure isn't enough on its own, because their alarm fires on abandonment as well as on engulfment. Step back too far and you confirm the fear you were trying to avoid triggering. Our fearful avoidant attachment guide goes through that balance properly, and the dismissive avoidant guide covers the other half in more depth than there's room for here.

If you're not sure, assume fearful and stay warmer than feels necessary. The cost of being slightly too present with a dismissive partner is mild irritation. The cost of going cold on a fearful one is a spiral neither of you wanted.

What Causes Avoidant Attachment?

Nobody picks this style. It gets built, usually early, and usually as the smartest available response to a situation a child couldn't change.

The standard account goes like this. A baby cries, and what happens next teaches them something. If the distress reliably brings someone who soothes it, the child learns that needing people works. If the distress brings irritation, distance, or a parent who handles practical needs beautifully but goes stiff around feelings, the child learns something different: the need itself is the problem. So they stop broadcasting it. Not consciously, and not because they stopped feeling it. They just quietly route around a door that never opened.

That's the part people miss when they call an avoidant partner cold. The self-sufficiency isn't the absence of attachment needs. It's a strategy layered on top of them.

That strategy seems to leave a trace you can measure, though this work is early and the samples are small. Krause and colleagues scanned 23 men while they listened to attachment narratives and published the results in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience in 2016. Two findings are worth your attention. The more avoidant someone scored, the more tightly their dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, a region that tracks social threat, was coupled to the hippocampus, which handles memory, at r = 0.69. And baseline connectivity between the amygdala and the temporal lobe tracked childhood trauma scores at r = 0.79, with physical neglect driving most of that effect, followed by emotional neglect and emotional abuse.

Twenty-three people is not many, so hold the detail lightly. But the direction fits everything else here. The rule a child built to get through an unresponsive room doesn't just sit in their personality. It sits in how their brain files closeness, which is why it survives being told it's wrong.

The scale of this shows up in the Adult Attachment Interview data. Bakermans-Kranenburg and van IJzendoorn pooled more than 10,000 AAI classifications gathered across 25 years and published the distributions in Attachment and Human Development in 2009. Among North American non-clinical mothers, 23 percent came out dismissing, against 58 percent secure and 19 percent preoccupied. Roughly one in four, in an ordinary non-clinical group. This isn't a rare pathology. It's one of the standard ways people turn out.

A few things worth being clear about, because this is where the internet gets sloppy:

• It doesn't require abuse. Plenty of avoidant adults had loving, present, entirely well-meaning parents who simply weren't comfortable with big feelings. Emotional unavailability and cruelty are different things.
• It isn't a straightforward inheritance. The intergenerational picture is much weaker than pop psychology suggests. An avoidant parent doesn't automatically produce an avoidant child, and plenty of avoidant adults come from homes with no obvious story at all.
• Later relationships count too. Attachment isn't sealed at age three. A long stretch with a partner who punished vulnerability can push someone avoidant well into adulthood.

Why does the origin story matter if you're the one dating them? Because it changes what you're up against. You're not competing with someone's indifference. You're up against a rule they learned before they had words for it, which is that showing need gets you hurt. That rule doesn't respond to being argued with. It responds to years of evidence that it isn't true anymore.

Why Do Avoidant Partners Pull Away?

Nobody picks this pattern. It takes root early, in the relationship between a child and their caregivers, and it's a sensible adaptation to the situation the child was actually in.

When a caregiver consistently dismisses or minimises a child's emotional needs, the child adapts. Reaching out for comfort stops paying off, so the child stops reaching. Sometimes the message is blunt, a parent uncomfortable with tears, or one who praises a kid mainly for being tough and low-maintenance. Sometimes it's quieter, a home where achievement gets noticed and softer feelings don't. Either way the child draws a reasonable conclusion: depending on people doesn't work, so I'll depend on myself.

That conclusion is protective in childhood. The problem is it doesn't expire. The adult who learned early that needs were a burden can still feel, somewhere below thought, that leaning on a partner is unsafe, even when that partner is steady and kind.

Here's the part worth sitting with. Deactivating isn't the absence of feeling. It's the management of it. Under the withdrawal there's usually a person who wants closeness and doesn't trust it, which is a much more painful position than not caring would be.

The reward system runs quieter

There's brain imaging on this, and it's more specific than most people expect. Vrtička and colleagues at the University of Geneva scanned 16 volunteers while showing them faces paired with positive or negative social feedback, publishing the results in PLoS One in 2008. When a smiling face delivered approval, participants scoring higher on avoidant attachment showed markedly less activation in the ventral striatum and ventral tegmental area, the dopamine regions that normally light up for reward. The correlation was strong, at r = -.787 for the ventral striatum and r = -.706 for the VTA.

Read that plainly and it says something quite sad. Warmth from another person registers as less rewarding. Not unnoticed, just flatter. So when your avoidant partner seems oddly unmoved by praise or affection you offered generously, you're probably not imagining the muted response.

One honest detail from the same study. Avoidant scores did not predict amygdala reactivity to angry faces. That threat response tracked with anxious attachment instead. Avoidance isn't a brain screaming danger at you. It's a brain that gets less of a lift from connection, which makes stepping back cost less than it would for most people.

What Are the Signs of an Avoidant Attachment Style?

Attachment sits on a spectrum and most people carry traces of more than one style. But a cluster of these usually points avoidant.

The need for space is non-negotiable

Alone time isn't a preference, it's a requirement. When a partner wants more togetherness than they have available, they feel crowded, sometimes trapped, and often resent the request without quite knowing why.

Closeness makes them notice your flaws

Just as things get serious, their attention drifts to everything wrong with you. The way you chew, your taste in films, a habit they used to find endearing. This is a classic deactivating move. It builds a case for the distance they already want.

Vulnerability gets intellectualised

Fears, needs, and tender feelings get analysed rather than felt. They'll explain an emotion rather than have it, change the subject, or handle something hard privately rather than let you in.

They withdraw right after real intimacy

A great weekend, an honest conversation, a genuinely close night, and then the retreat. This is the one that baffles partners most, because the pulling back arrives exactly when things were good. The closeness is the trigger.

Independence is a point of pride

There's real strength in self-reliance, and they know it. The cost only shows up when it becomes a wall.

There's some data on how this plays out. A 2023 study by Sagone and colleagues in the European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, covering 393 Italian adults aged 18 to 62, found that single participants scored significantly higher on discomfort with closeness than those in stable relationships. Each unit increase on that measure was associated with roughly 4.7 percent lower odds of being in a close relationship. You can read the full analysis via the National Institutes of Health archive. The study was a snapshot and the effects were small, but discomfort with closeness goes along with a lonelier life, and the people carrying it usually pay for it quietly.

If some of this describes you rather than your partner, our guide to dismissive avoidant attachment goes deeper on the internal experience, and fearful avoidant attachment covers the version that mixes avoidance with anxiety.

Do Avoidant Partners Even Notice What You're Feeling?

Yes. And this is probably the single most useful thing to understand about them, because almost everyone gets it backwards.

The intuitive read on an avoidant partner is that they're emotionally oblivious. You're visibly upset, they carry on as if nothing's happening, so the obvious conclusion is that they didn't register it. The lab data says otherwise.

Liu, Ding, Lu, and Chen ran an fMRI study published in Scientific Reports in 2017, comparing 17 avoidant and 16 securely attached participants as they viewed attachment-related emotional images. In the early stage, when attention first locks onto something, the avoidant group showed the same attentional engagement effect as the secure group, even though they were slower to respond overall. Their conclusion was blunt: avoidant individuals could detect emotions as effectively as secure individuals during attentional engagement.

The gap opened later, at disengagement. Avoidant participants had a harder time pulling attention away from negative parent-child emotional content once it had them. And their brains were working harder throughout, with stronger activation across both automatic processing regions and control regions. More neural effort, not less.

Sit with that for a second. The person who looks unbothered is running a heavier load than the person who's visibly upset.

This reframes the whole dynamic. When your avoidant partner goes flat during a hard conversation, the flatness isn't the absence of a reaction. It's the cost of managing one. The stillness is effort. And the fact that negative parent-child material is specifically what they struggle to shake suggests the old wiring is still very much live, whatever the surface says.

Two practical things follow. First, stop treating their calm as proof they don't care, because you'll build resentment on a foundation that isn't there. Second, stop escalating to get a reaction. If they've already detected the emotion and are burning resources to contain it, turning up the volume doesn't help them feel it. It just raises what they're containing, which is exactly when people leave the room.

A separate eye-tracking study pins down where in the process the switch actually flips. Uccula, Mercante, Barone and Enrico tested 72 adults, average age 23.9, and published the results in Behavioral Sciences in 2022. You can read it in full on PubMed Central. Participants were primed with a threatening or neutral cue, then chose between care-related images and food images while the equipment tracked their gaze.

Here is the finding that matters. Where their eyes landed last showed no difference between the high-avoidance and low-avoidance groups. What they then chose did. Avoidant participants picked the care-related image less often, in both the calm and the threatening condition.

Same looking, different choosing. The researchers read that as deactivation happening at the decision stage rather than at perception, and it fits the fMRI picture exactly. Your partner is not failing to see the moment. They are seeing it and then routing around it, and that routing is fast enough to look like it never happened.

The honest caveat: 33 people in a scanner is a small study, and a lab task isn't a Tuesday night argument. Treat it as a clue about the mechanism rather than the last word. But it lines up with what the behavioural research keeps showing, and it matches what avoidant people say about themselves once they feel safe enough to say it.

Is It Avoidant Attachment or Do They Just Need Space?

Sometimes a person who wants two evenings alone a week is just a person who wants two evenings alone a week. The word avoidant gets thrown at anyone who isn't available on demand, and that's worth pushing back on, because mislabelling ordinary independence as pathology damages perfectly good relationships.

The base rates are a decent reality check. Bakermans-Kranenburg and van IJzendoorn's meta-analysis of the first 10,000 Adult Attachment Interviews, covering more than 200 studies over 25 years, put dismissing attachment at 23 percent of non-clinical adults, with 58 percent secure. So roughly one in four, not the majority. If everyone you've dated seems avoidant, the pattern might be in who you're picking, and our piece on why we pick the same partner is the more useful read.

Four questions separate a preference from a pattern.

• Does the distance follow closeness specifically? Someone who needs recovery time after a busy week needs it regardless of how the relationship is going. Avoidant withdrawal tracks intimacy. If the retreat reliably lands after the good weekend or the honest conversation, that's the tell.
• Do they come back and re-engage, or come back and pretend it didn't happen? A person who needed space returns and picks up where you left off. Deactivating usually involves the closeness being quietly unacknowledged afterwards, as though the conversation never took place.
• Can they tell you what they need? "I'm wiped, I need Sunday to myself, let's do Monday" is a request. Going quiet for four days and resurfacing without reference to it is something else. The difference isn't the space. It's whether you were told.
• What happens when you raise it kindly? This is the sharpest test. Bring it up once, warmly, with no accusation. Someone with a preference explains it. An avoidant pattern tends to produce deflection, a counter-criticism, or a sudden discovery that you're too needy.

One more thing. Plenty of behaviour that looks avoidant is really just a mismatch in how much togetherness two people want. That's a compatibility question, not a diagnosis, and it deserves an honest conversation rather than a label. Working out how to communicate what you actually need will get you further than deciding which attachment style they are.

Does the Withdrawal Actually Damage the Relationship?

Yes, and the damage is mostly indirect. The withdrawal itself isn't what wrecks things. It's the loop it starts with the other person.

The cleanest data on this comes from Bretaña and colleagues, who studied 175 heterosexual Spanish couples aged 18 to 72 and published in Frontiers in Psychology in 2022. Because they measured both partners, they could trace how each person's avoidance related to both partners' behaviour. Avoidance strongly predicted withdrawing during conflict, at the same coefficient, 0.41, for men and women. Withdrawal was more strongly linked to avoidance than getting demanding or aggressive was, at 0.27.

Then the loop. One partner's withdrawal predicted the other partner's demanding and aggressive response, at 0.46 when men withdrew and 0.48 when women did. So the retreat doesn't produce calm. It produces escalation from the person left standing there, which produces more retreat.

The satisfaction numbers are blunt. Avoidance correlated with relationship satisfaction at r = -0.63 for both men and women, which is a large effect by any standard in this field. And the withdrawal was doing the work: it statistically mediated the path from avoidant attachment to the person's own dissatisfaction, and it reached across to lower their partner's satisfaction too, by way of the demanding response it provoked.

That was 175 couples in one country, and all of it self-reported. A far bigger study has since run the same machinery with outside observers watching, and it found something the satisfaction numbers miss completely.

Robert Körner, Nickola Overall and colleagues ran five studies covering 1,256 couples in Israel, Germany and New Zealand, published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (52(7), 2098 to 2115) and available via PubMed Central. Avoidance predicted the avoidant person feeling less powerful in their own relationship, with unstandardised coefficients running from -0.12 to -0.39 across the first three studies. That part is not surprising. The new part is what it did to the other person. Avoidance also predicted the partner feeling less powerful, from -0.08 to -0.23 in those same studies.

And they pinned down the mechanism rather than guessing at it. In one of the studies, independent coders who had never met these couples watched them argue and rated how much each person withdrew, agreeing with each other closely (an ICC above .86). That coded withdrawal predicted the partner reporting less power over the conflict. A separate daily diary study got there a second way, through what partners noticed day to day.

Put plainly, withdrawal doesn't only make you feel bad. It removes your ability to get anything settled. The researchers' own wording is that withdrawal behaviours "severely limit the partner's ability to effectively address concerns." Which matters if you're the one left standing in the room, because the powerlessness you feel isn't you being dramatic or needy. It is a measurable effect that strangers with a rating sheet can see from the outside.

It also kills a story people tell about avoidance. Withdrawal usually gets read as a power move, the one who cares less holding all the cards. The data says the opposite. Both people come out of it with less power. Nobody is winning the standoff, which is worth remembering before you start playing it.

Two things follow from that, and they cut in opposite directions. If you're the avoidant one, the distance you use to protect the relationship is measurably corroding it, including for you. And if you're the partner, the escalation that feels completely justified is a documented part of the machinery, which means your side of it is also something you can change. Nobody in this pattern is only a bystander.

What Does Avoidant Attachment Cost the Avoidant Person?

More than it looks like from the outside. The self-reliance genuinely works in a lot of settings, and people with this style are often the ones everyone else leans on. But suppression has a running cost, and it doesn't stay filed under feelings.

McWilliams and Bailey took that same 5,645-person National Comorbidity Survey Replication sample and tested adult attachment against 15 separate health conditions, publishing the results in Health Psychology in 2010. Avoidant attachment ratings came out positively associated with the conditions defined mainly by pain, frequent or severe headaches among them. Anxious attachment linked to a wider spread of problems, including cardiovascular ones. It was the first study to run adult attachment against that broad a set of physical conditions, and what stands out for avoidance is how specific the pattern is. Not sicker across the board. Just more of the stuff that tends to track with tension you never put down.

Which lines up with what the emotion research already showed. Deactivating isn't the same as not feeling. It's spending effort to keep the feeling off the screen, and your body keeps that tab open whether or not you're looking at it.

So if you're the avoidant one reading this, the trade you've been making is real, and it isn't free. The distance keeps the discomfort down in the moment and quietly charges you for it later. That's not a character flaw. It's an old strategy that was smart when you built it and is now running in a situation it wasn't designed for.

Do Avoidant People Really Not Care When It Ends?

Mostly they do care, but they've got a real, measurable skill for keeping it out of the way. And that skill has a weak spot. So the calm you see after a breakup is real in one sense and not the whole story in another.

Start with the part that's uncomfortable if you're the one left behind. R. Chris Fraley and Phillip Shaver tested whether dismissing-avoidant adults were just hiding distress, or actually switching it off. Their two experiments, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 1997 (volume 73, issue 5, pages 1080 to 1091), asked people to think about a partner leaving them and then to stop thinking about it. When dismissing-avoidant people tried to suppress those thoughts, abandonment-related thoughts became less accessible, and their physiological arousal actually dropped. The authors concluded these people are "capable of suppressing the latent activation of their attachment system" and are "not simply concealing latent distress." You can read the abstract on PubMed.

So no, they're not always faking it. When they seem fine a week later, a lot of the time the system that would be screaming in you really has gone quiet in them. That's worth knowing, because it stops you reading their calm as a performance put on to hurt you.

What happens when they're stretched thin?

This is where it gets interesting. Mario Mikulincer, Tamar Dolev and Phillip Shaver ran two studies on exactly this, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2004 (volume 87, issue 6, pages 940 to 956). People were asked to suppress thoughts about a relationship breakup, then did a task under either light or heavy mental load. Heavy load meant holding extra information in their head while they worked.

Under light load, avoidant people did fine. No rebound of breakup thoughts, and they leaned on positive views of themselves. But under heavy load, the suppression gave way. Avoidant participants "failed to suppress thoughts of separation" and were more likely to bring up negative views of themselves. The researchers framed the whole thing as evidence of "the hidden vulnerabilities of avoidant individuals." Here's the PubMed record.

Put the two studies together and you get a more honest picture than either "they don't care" or "they're secretly devastated." The defence works well when life is easy. It's a resource, and resources run out. A new job, a bereavement, exhaustion, a bad month. That's when the breakup they filed away tends to come back, sometimes months later and sometimes as a sudden message out of nowhere.

What does that mean for you?

Two things, and they pull in different directions.

• Don't measure your worth by their calm. How fast they seem to move on tells you about their defence, not about how much the relationship mattered. Your grief being louder doesn't make it less legitimate.
• Don't treat a late message as a change of heart. A text during a stressful stretch often means the suppression slipped, not that anything underneath has shifted. It's the same point as the FAQ below on whether avoidant partners come back. Watch what's different, not just that they reached out.

A caveat, because these are lab studies. Both used thought-listing and reaction-time tasks with volunteers, not people in the middle of real breakups, and the samples were modest. They show a mechanism, not a timeline. And if you're the one stuck replaying the relationship while they seem untouched, that gap is exactly what our anxious attachment healing guide is for. If the ending has knocked you flat for weeks, talking it through with a therapist can help, and Online-Therapy.com is one low-friction way to start.

Why Does Giving Them More Love Backfire?

Because being singled out for extra attention threatens an avoidant person more than being left out does. That sounds backwards. It's also the single most counterintuitive finding in this area, and it explains why the instinct to fix distance with more affection reliably makes things worse.

Izaki, Wang and Kawamoto tested this directly and published it in Frontiers in Psychology in 2022. They put 133 students through a ball-tossing game with three setups. In one, you get frozen out and receive 2 throws out of 30. In another, you get a fair share at 10 of 30. In the third, you get showered with 15 of 30, twice as many as each of the other players. Afterwards everyone rated how much the experience dented their sense of belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaning.

The exclusion results went as you'd expect from everything else in this guide. People high in avoidance took less of a hit to self-esteem than people low in avoidance when they were left out, at p = 0.02. Belonging, control, and meaning showed no real difference. Being ignored simply costs them less.

The over-inclusion results are the interesting half. When high-avoidance participants were given more attention than everyone else, they reported significantly greater threat to both belonging and self-esteem than low-avoidance participants did. They also felt more threatened by the extra attention than they had by an equal share of it. Getting more was worse than getting the same. And anxious attachment produced no significant effect in any condition, so this isn't a general insecurity thing. It's specific to avoidance.

Sit with what that means at home. The extra affection you offer when they've gone quiet, the surprise weekend, the long message about how much they mean to you, the intense burst of closeness meant to close the gap, all of it is over-inclusion. You're not giving them a reason to come closer. You're increasing the exact input their system reads as threatening, which is why the response so often looks like ingratitude.

So the practical rule isn't less love. It's steadier love, at a level that doesn't spike.

• Aim for equal footing, not extra. The equal-inclusion condition was the comfortable one. Treating them like a normal participant in your life beats treating them like a project.
• Spread it out instead of concentrating it. Six small ordinary contacts across a fortnight land better than one enormous gesture, which is just a spike with a bow on it.
• Watch your own escalation. The urge to give more when someone withdraws is human and it's the wrong direction. Distance is not a signal to increase the dose.
• Don't read the flat response as rejection of you. A muted reaction to a big gesture is the pattern doing what it does, not a verdict on your worth.

Worth keeping this in proportion. It's 133 undergraduates tossing a virtual ball, not couples in their kitchens, so treat the direction as instructive rather than settled. But it lines up neatly with the softening research below, and with why intense early attention can feel suffocating rather than flattering. If the over-attention in your relationship is running the other way and feels strategic rather than clumsy, our guide to love bombing covers where that line sits.

How Do You Deal With an Avoidant Partner?

Most advice here is either wishful or punitive. What follows is neither. It works because it changes the input their nervous system is responding to.

The strongest evidence for any of it comes from Nickola Overall, Jeffry Simpson and Helena Struthers, who video-recorded 180 heterosexual couples working through conflicts where one partner wanted the other to change something. Their findings, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2013 and summarised in this NIH-archived review of partner buffering, were clear. Avoidant partners on the receiving end of a request showed more anger and more withdrawal, and those discussions went worse. But at the specific moments when their partner used what the researchers called softening communication, reassurance of the person's value and acknowledgement of their autonomy, the anger and the withdrawal both eased. Same avoidant person, same conflict, different outcome depending on how the request was delivered.

That's the practical heart of this. You can't argue someone out of avoidance, but you can change the conditions that trigger the defence.

1. Stop chasing during the withdrawal. This is counterintuitive and it's the single biggest change you can make. Pursuit reads as pressure, pressure triggers more deactivating, and you end up in the push-pull loop described in our guide to the anxious avoidant trap. Stepping back isn't a tactic to make them miss you. It removes the thing that's making them run.
2. Say what you need without wrapping it in an accusation. There's a real difference between "you always shut me out" and "I feel disconnected and I'd like an evening together this week." The first is a verdict and invites defence. The second is a request and can actually be answered.
3. Be boringly predictable. Avoidant nervous systems are calibrated for inconsistency. Doing what you said you'd do, showing up when you said you would, and reacting proportionately when things go wrong slowly builds a different expectation. It's unglamorous and it's the main thing that works.
4. Give space with a sentence attached. Silent withdrawal on your side confirms their model that closeness is unstable. Saying you're around when they're ready gives them room without leaving them guessing. Then actually leave them alone.
5. Notice the direction of travel, not the good days. Everyone has good weeks. What matters is whether the gaps are getting shorter over months and whether they're willing to name the pattern themselves. If nothing is moving after a year of your effort and none of theirs, that's information.
6. Keep your own life intact. Organising your entire week around someone's availability is how resentment gets built. It also makes you less steady, which makes them more avoidant. Your friendships and your own plans aren't a consolation prize.

One boundary worth stating plainly. You can't do this work on someone's behalf. You can make the conditions safer, and that genuinely helps, but the actual change has to be something they choose. If you find yourself managing their emotions while your own needs go unspoken for months, the pattern has shifted into something closer to loving an emotionally unavailable partner, and that's worth looking at honestly.

Can Changing Your Own Reactions Actually Move Theirs?

Yes, and this is the one finding in the whole field that gives you something to do that doesn't depend on their cooperation. Your state on a given day measurably changes how an avoidant partner behaves on that same day.

The study is unusually well built. Taranah Gazder and Sarah Stanton recruited 100 couples, 200 people, and ran a daily diary for 14 consecutive days, with a survey sent out at 4pm each afternoon. People completed an average of 12.96 of the 14 surveys, which is a high compliance rate for this kind of design. The paper ran in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health in 2020.

What they measured was relationship mindfulness, which sounds vague and isn't. It means being openly and receptively aware of your partner and the relationship in the present moment, rather than running on autopilot or on the story in your head about what their silence means.

The headline result is about the partner, not the avoidant person. On days when the partner scored higher on relationship mindfulness, avoidant individuals enacted significantly fewer negative behaviours and significantly more positive ones. Not the following week. The same day. The avoidant person's behaviour tracked their partner's state of mind.

The avoidant person's own mindfulness helped too, but less cleanly. On their own high-mindfulness days they showed fewer negative behaviours, though the effect ran weaker than it did for secure people, and their positive behaviours didn't shift at all. The researchers describe their own mindfulness as security-enhancing rather than insecurity-buffering, which in plain terms means it made good days better instead of rescuing bad ones.

Here's why that matters to you specifically. Most advice for partners of avoidants is about what to say. This is about what state you're in when you say it. And it's the rare intervention where you hold the controls.

What relationship mindfulness looks like on a Tuesday night:

• Respond to what happened, not to the pattern. When they cancel, the mindful version deals with tonight's cancellation. The autopilot version is already litigating every cancellation of the last eight months.
• Notice the story before you act on it. "They've gone quiet" is an observation. "They've gone quiet because they're losing interest" is a forecast you invented. The gap between those two is where the argument usually starts.
• Check your own state before a hard conversation. If you're already braced, they'll read the brace and deactivate before you've finished the first sentence. Ten minutes of settling first is not a waste of ten minutes.
• Stay curious about their actual experience. Asking what the last hour was like for them, and meaning it, works better than presenting your conclusion about what it was like for them.
• Let a good day be a good day. Scanning a calm evening for evidence of the next withdrawal pulls you out of the evening you're in and they can feel it.

One honest limit. A 14-day diary study shows same-day effects, not cures, and nobody has demonstrated that being mindful at someone reorganises their attachment style over years. Treat this as a way to make the daily weather better while the slower work happens, not as the slower work itself. It also isn't a licence to become the emotional thermostat for the relationship. If holding a calm state has quietly become your full-time job, that's the imbalance the guide to communicating needs is for.

And if your own reactivity is the part that won't shift, that's a reasonable thing to take to a professional rather than white-knuckle alone. Working with a therapist on your side of the dynamic tends to move things faster than waiting for a partner who isn't ready to start.

Why Do They Go Quiet When One of You Is Struggling?

Because stress switches on the same deactivating system that closeness does, and it runs in both directions. When you're the one having a hard time, an avoidant partner often gives less support just when you need more. When they're the one having a hard time, they tend not to ask at all, or they ask so indirectly that you miss it. Both are well documented, and the second one has a surprisingly specific fix.

When you need them

This is the moment people remember for years. The diagnosis, the redundancy, the family emergency, and a partner who went strangely flat. It feels like a verdict on how much they care. The research says it's more mechanical than that.

Jeffry Simpson, W. Steven Rholes and J. S. Nelligan set up a now classic test in 1992. They filmed 83 dating couples in a waiting room while the woman waited for what she'd been told would be a stressful procedure, and published it in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (volume 62, pages 434 to 446). As Nancy Collins and Brooke Feeney later summarised it, secure men offered more support as their partner showed more anxiety, "whereas avoidant men offered less support." The more she needed, the less he gave. Not because he didn't register it. Her distress was exactly what set off his urge to create distance.

That doesn't make it OK, and you're allowed to be hurt by it. But it does change what helps. Waiting for them to notice and step up usually means waiting through the worst of it alone. Asking directly and specifically ("Can you come with me on Thursday?", "I need you to just sit with me tonight, no fixing") gives an avoidant partner something concrete to do, which is far easier for them than an open-ended emotional demand they can't measure.

When they need you

Collins and Feeney ran their own version at the State University of New York at Buffalo and published it in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2000 (volume 78, pages 1053 to 1073). You can read the full paper hosted by the University of California, Santa Barbara. They filmed 93 dating couples while one partner talked through a real personal problem.

People higher in avoidance were less likely to seek support as their stress went up. And when they did seek it, they were more likely to use indirect strategies, which the researchers coded as hinting and sulking. Think complaining about the situation without asking for anything, or sighing and going quiet in the next room.

Here's the trap in that. Across the whole study, direct requests for help drew helpful responses from partners, and indirect ones drew unhelpful ones. So the avoidant partner hints, the hint gets a flat or irritated response, and that response confirms their belief that asking for help doesn't work. The pattern keeps itself going.

Which means the sigh from the next room is worth learning to read as a request. It's probably the closest thing to "I'm not OK" you're going to get.

What kind of help actually lands?

This is the finding most people get backwards. Yuthika Girme, Nickola Overall, Jeffry Simpson and Garth Fletcher ran four studies, 298 couples in total, and published them in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2015 (volume 108, pages 450 to 475), indexed on PubMed. They looked at practical support, meaning concrete help with the actual problem.

For highly avoidant people, a little practical help made things worse. As support went from low to moderate, they got more distressed, felt more controlled and criticised, and pulled away more. But as support moved from moderate to high, it flipped. Distress dropped, they felt less criticised, and they pulled away less. The researchers concluded that high levels of practical support can get past an avoidant person's defences "by offering undeniable evidence of the partner's availability." Less avoidant people did fine at any level.

So the half measure is the worst option. A couple of tentative suggestions and a "let me know if you need anything" reads to an avoidant partner as someone hovering and judging. Quietly taking the whole task off their plate reads as proof you're there. In practice:

• Do, don't offer. Book the appointment, cook the meals, sort the paperwork. "Want me to help?" invites a reflexive no.
• Go all the way or leave it. Doing half a job and checking in about it is the moderate zone the study flagged. Commit to the whole thing.
• Skip the debrief. Practical help doesn't have to come with a conversation about feelings. That conversation can come later, if it comes at all.
• Don't keep score out loud. Help that arrives with a reminder of how much you've done lands as the control and criticism the study measured.

One caution so this doesn't turn into another way to overfunction. This is about moments of real stress, not about carrying their whole life for them. If you're giving high practical support all the time and getting little back when it's your turn, the imbalance itself is the thing to look at, and the section on knowing when to stop trying is written for exactly that.

What Do You Do When They Shut Down Mid-Conversation?

Stop the conversation. Not the relationship, not the topic, just the conversation, and set a specific time to come back to it. Nothing useful gets decided after someone has gone flat, and pushing through is the single most common mistake partners make.

Here's the part that changes how you read the moment. The blank calm on their face isn't calm. Work reviewed in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience in 2015, drawing together psychophysiological studies of attachment, describes a study by Dozier and Kobak in 1992 in which adults using deactivating strategies, the ones who play down their early attachment experiences, showed a marked rise in skin conductance and heart rate when asked to recall rejection, threat and separation from their parents. Skin conductance is a marker of sympathetic nervous system arousal. The reviewers' reading is that people who deactivate attachment distress should be expected to show heightened physiological reactivity to attachment-related stress, whatever their face is doing.

So the person who looks unbothered while you're upset is, measurably, not unbothered. Their body is running a stress response and their expression is running suppression. That gap is the whole thing. And it means the flat face you're reading as indifference, or worse as contempt, is closer to overload.

What to do with that in the moment:

1. Name the state, not the character. "I think we've both hit a wall" works. "You're doing the thing where you check out" is a diagnosis delivered mid-argument, and nobody has ever responded well to one.
2. Put a time on the pause. An open-ended break feels like abandonment to you and gets quietly extended by them. "Let's pick this up after dinner" gives you both something concrete. Twenty minutes is usually the minimum for a nervous system to settle.
3. Agree the re-entry rule while things are calm. Decide in advance, on a good day, that either of you can call a pause and that whoever calls it is responsible for restarting the conversation. That last clause matters. Without it, the pause becomes the ending.
4. Don't chase resolution the same night. The urge to fix it before sleep is understandable and it usually costs you. A conversation resumed calmly on Tuesday beats one forced through at midnight.
5. Watch what happens after, not during. Anyone can shut down under pressure. The question is whether they come back. Consistent returning is the signal worth tracking.

If pauses in your relationship reliably turn into days of silence, that's a different problem, and our guide to healthy conflict resolution covers how to rebuild a repair process from scratch.

Can Avoidant Attachment Change?

Yes, with an honest caveat. Attachment styles are learned, which means they can be relearned, and psychologists use the phrase earned secure attachment for people who grew up insecure and developed the capacity for steady closeness later.

But the strongest reason for optimism isn't the therapy data. It's what happens to people in ordinary community samples, followed for decades. William Chopik, Robin Edelstein and Kevin Grimm pooled three long-running longitudinal samples, the Block and Block study, the Intergenerational Studies, and the Radcliffe College Class of 1964, and tracked attachment in 628 people from age 13 to age 72. Writing in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 116, Issue 4, 2019), they reported that attachment avoidance fell in a straight line across the whole lifespan. Not in a burst after some breakthrough. Steadily, decade after decade.

Two details in that paper are worth more to you than the headline. The first is that being in a relationship predicted lower avoidance across adulthood, which points at something the self-help framing usually gets backwards. The relationship isn't only the thing that exposes the pattern. It's part of what wears it down. The second is that men scored higher on avoidance at every single point in the lifespan. Read that carefully, because it sits alongside the Bretaña finding above rather than against it. Men carry more of the trait on average. What the trait then does to a relationship, the withdrawing and the damage to satisfaction, runs the same way regardless of who has it.

None of that means waiting it out is a plan. Fifty-nine years is a long time to sit through, and an average trend across 628 people tells you nothing about whether your particular person is moving. Use it as a floor rather than a forecast. The direction people drift on their own is toward less avoidance, and deliberate work is how you get there faster than the calendar would take you.

The base rate is better than most people expect. Paul Spengler and colleagues pooled 20 studies covering 332 couples in a 2024 meta-analysis of Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy, published in Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, and found medium to large improvements in relationship distress both at the end of treatment and at follow-up, with around 70 percent of couples finishing symptom free. One detail in there is worth carrying with you when you go looking for help. Outcomes tracked how closely the therapist stuck to the model, so who you work with and what they are trained in genuinely matters.

The caveat comes from the therapy evidence. Burgess Moser and colleagues tracked 32 couples through Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy and published the results in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy in 2016. Couples significantly decreased in relationship-specific attachment avoidance across sessions, and attachment behaviour moved measurably toward security. But the two-year follow-up of the same couples, by Wiebe and colleagues in 2017, found that while attachment anxiety kept falling after therapy ended, avoidance didn't show the same continued decline.

That's not a reason to skip therapy. It's a reason to treat avoidant patterns as something you keep practising rather than something you fix once. The people who hold onto the change are generally the ones who keep doing the work after the sessions stop. If waiting lists or the idea of sitting in a room with a stranger are what's stopping you, online therapy with an attachment-trained counsellor lowers the barrier considerably, and for avoidant patterns specifically the option to message between sessions often suits people who process privately before they speak.

What actually shifts the pattern

Catching the deactivating in real time is where it starts. The next time the urge to retreat arrives, pausing to ask what just happened, and whether things got close or someone needed something, opens a window between the impulse and the exit.

Then naming it out loud instead of acting on it. Telling a partner "I notice I want to pull back right now, and I'm working on staying" is a small act of vulnerability that turns a confusing disappearance into an open door. It's uncomfortable and it's disproportionately effective.

After that it's repetition. One honest share, one request for support, one conversation you stay in a few minutes longer than is comfortable. Every time closeness doesn't lead to engulfment or rejection, the nervous system collects evidence that this might be survivable. Our secure attachment guide covers what you're building toward.

How Do You Know When to Stop Trying?

Watch whether you have started withdrawing too. That is the clearest signal in the research, and it is a more useful thing to track than counting their good weeks.

Lefebvre, Brassard, Jean, Daspe, Lafontaine and Peloquin followed 263 couples across five assessments over a year, publishing in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy in 2026. The paper is available on PubMed Central. Higher attachment avoidance at the start predicted the withdraw/withdraw pattern three months later, where both people stop raising things. And that pattern predicted lower relationship satisfaction for both partners a year on, with an indirect effect of b = -0.041 (p = .005).

Two things in there are worth carrying. The effect ran in both directions, so their avoidance was dragging down their own satisfaction as well as yours. And the link got stronger for couples going through more stressful life events, which is the opposite of what you would hope, because stress is exactly when you need the conversation to still work.

So the question is not whether they withdraw. They will. It is whether you have quietly stopped bringing things up because it is not worth the cost. That is the shift that predicts the slide, and it is the one you can actually notice in yourself.

Some honest markers that things are moving:

• They name the pattern without you raising it first. Not perfectly, not every time. But they can say out loud that they pulled back, which means they can see it happening.
• The gaps get shorter over months. Not the intensity of the good days. The recovery time.
• You are still saying what you need. If you can raise something difficult this month the way you could last year, the channel is open.

And some that things are not:

• You have stopped asking. Not because things improved, but because asking costs more than going without. This is the withdraw/withdraw pattern arriving, and it usually feels like maturity from the inside.
• All the work is yours. You have read the guides, changed how you speak, given space on cue. They have done nothing they were not asked to do.
• Nothing is different a year on. Not worse. Just identical, while you have spent a year adjusting.

None of that tells you to leave. It tells you which conversation to have, and whether to have it with them or with someone neutral first. This is genuinely hard to judge from inside the relationship, and it is one of the few problems where an outside read is worth paying for. Talking it through with a therapist before you decide anything permanent tends to be the difference between a decision you stand behind and one you keep relitigating.

What Else Do People Ask About Avoidant Attachment?

Do avoidant partners ever come back?

Often yes, because distance lowers the pressure that triggered the withdrawal in the first place. But coming back isn't the same as change. If nothing has shifted in how they handle closeness, the same cycle usually restarts within a few months. Watch what they do differently, not whether they return.

Should I give an avoidant partner space or reach out?

Give space, but say something first. Silent withdrawal on your side reads as punishment and confirms their belief that closeness is unstable. A short message saying you're around when they're ready gives them room without leaving them to guess. Then genuinely leave them alone until they respond.

Is avoidant attachment the same as being emotionally unavailable?

They overlap but aren't identical. Avoidant attachment is a specific pattern with a known developmental origin and a known mechanism. Emotional unavailability is a broader description that can also come from grief, burnout, an existing relationship, or simply not being interested. The behaviour can look the same from outside.

Can two avoidant people have a healthy relationship?

Yes, and it's often calmer than an anxious and avoidant pairing because neither person is chasing. The risk is different. Two avoidants can drift into a comfortable but thin relationship where nothing difficult ever gets raised, and the distance grows slowly enough that neither notices until it's wide.

How long does it take for an avoidant partner to open up?

There's no set timeline, and it depends far more on repetition than on months passing. What builds trust is a pattern of small disclosures that are met calmly, over and over. Most people describe meaningful change taking a year or more, and it moves faster when the avoidant person is actively working on it.

If you recognise yourself in the avoidant side of this, be gentle about it. The pattern was a clever solution to a real situation and it kept a younger version of you safe. You're allowed to thank it and then let it loosen. Independence and genuine intimacy aren't opposites, whatever your nervous system currently believes.

Sources: Fraley, R. C., and Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment and the suppression of unwanted thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 1080 to 1091.  ·  Mikulincer, M., Dolev, T., and Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment-related strategies during thought suppression: ironic rebounds and vulnerable self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 940 to 956.  ·  Mickelson, K. D., Kessler, R. C., and Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 1092 to 1106.  ·  Konrath, S. H., Chopik, W. J., Hsing, C. K., and O'Brien, E. (2014). Changes in adult attachment styles in American college students over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(4), 326 to 348.  ·  Burgess Moser, M., Johnson, S. M., Dalgleish, T. L., Lafontaine, M., Wiebe, S. A., and Tasca, G. A. (2016). Changes in relationship-specific attachment in Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 42(2), 231 to 245.  ·  Wiebe, S. A., Johnson, S. M., Lafontaine, M., Burgess Moser, M., Dalgleish, T. L., and Tasca, G. A. (2017). Two-year follow-up outcomes in Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy: An investigation of relationship satisfaction and attachment trajectories. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 43(2), 227 to 244.  ·  Chopik, W. J., Edelstein, R. S., and Grimm, K. J. (2019). Longitudinal changes in attachment orientation over a 59-year period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(4), 598 to 611.  ·  Spengler, P. M., Lee, N. A., Wiebe, S. A., and Wittenborn, A. K. (2024). A comprehensive meta-analysis on the efficacy of Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 13(2), 81 to 99.  ·  Sagone, E., Commodari, E., Indiana, M. L., and La Rosa, V. L. (2023). Exploring the association between attachment style, psychological well-being, and relationship status in young adults and adults. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(3).  ·  Vrtička, P., Andersson, F., Grandjean, D., Sander, D., and Vuilleumier, P. (2008). Individual attachment style modulates human amygdala and striatum activation during social appraisal. PLoS One, 3(8), e2868.  ·  Overall, N. C., Simpson, J. A., and Struthers, H. (2013). Buffering attachment-related avoidance: Softening emotional and behavioral defenses during conflict discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 854 to 871.  ·  Bretaña, I., Alonso-Arbiol, I., Recio, P., and Molero, F. (2022). Avoidant attachment, withdrawal-aggression conflict pattern, and relationship satisfaction: A mediational dyadic model. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 794942.  ·  Mikulincer, M., and Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.  ·  Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., and van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2009). The first 10,000 Adult Attachment Interviews: Distributions of adult attachment representations in clinical and non-clinical groups. Attachment and Human Development, 11(3), 223 to 263.  ·  Gander, M., and Buchheim, A. (2015). Attachment classification, psychophysiology and frontal EEG asymmetry across the lifespan: A review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 79.  ·  Izaki, R., Wang, Y., and Kawamoto, T. (2022). Avoidant attachment attenuates the need-threat for social exclusion but induces the threat for over-inclusion. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 881863.  ·  Uccula, A., Mercante, B., Barone, L., and Enrico, P. (2022). Adult avoidant attachment, attention bias, and emotional regulation patterns: An eye-tracking study. Behavioral Sciences, 12(1).  ·  Lefebvre, A., Brassard, A., Jean, F., Daspe, M., Lafontaine, M., and Peloquin, K. (2026). The role of communication in romantic attachment and relationship satisfaction: A dyadic longitudinal study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy.  ·  Körner, R., Overall, N. C., Chang, V. T., Hammond, M. D., Sasaki, E., Schütz, A., and Zverling, E. (2026). The relational nature of attachment and power: Attachment avoidance and withdrawal limit partners' power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 52(7), 2098 to 2115.  ·  Liu, X., Ding, C., Lu, Y., and Chen, X. (2017). Attention bias of avoidant individuals to attachment emotion pictures. Scientific Reports, 7, 41631.  ·  Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., and Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 434 to 446.  ·  Collins, N. L., and Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1053 to 1073.  ·  Girme, Y. U., Overall, N. C., Simpson, J. A., and Fletcher, G. J. O. (2015). "All or nothing": Attachment avoidance and the curvilinear effects of partner support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(3), 450 to 475.