Attachment Theory Is a Scam? Why Relationship Experts Are Pushing Back
Monday, March 10, 2025.
For years, Attachment Theory has treated as the holy gospel of relationship science.
It promised to explain everything—why you text back too fast, why your ex had the emotional availability of a houseplant, and why your best friend is engaged to a guy who never calls her “babe.”
But here’s the problem: it might be wrong. Or at least, wrong enough to be dangerous.
Not in the “flat earth” kind of way, but in the Freudian, still-lingering-long-past-its-expiration-date kind of way.
Researchers are starting to push back, and not just in the “I have some questions” way. More in the “we need to rethink this whole thing before we ruin more relationships” way.
So, is attachment theory scientific truth or relationship astrology with a PhD? Let’s break it down.
The Rise and Oversimplification of Attachment Theory
Attachment theory started out as a very serious and respectable psychological framework, courtesy of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth.
Their logic? Your childhood experiences shape your adult relationships. This is, generally speaking, true. If your parents treated you like royalty, you probably have a secure attachment style. If they disappeared into their work, left you alone too much, or treated love like a scarce commodity, congratulations—you might be avoidant or anxious.
So far, so good. But then came social media.
And suddenly, instead of being a fluid framework, attachment theory became a rigid identity test, the MBTI of love, the Zodiac signs of dating. You’re an avoidant Gemini? Good luck.
Dr. Amir Levine, one of the authors of Attached, even warned against this. “Attachment theory is a useful framework, but it’s not a crystal ball. Your past doesn’t doom you to a particular relationship fate.” But that didn’t stop TikTok from turning attachment labels into personality prisons.
Criticism #1: The Science Was Never That Rigid
Remember the famous Strange Situation Experiment? The one where babies were left alone in a room to see if they cried, chilled out, or ignored their mom like a moody teenager? That’s what Ainsworth used to classify attachment styles (Ainsworth et al., 1978).
But there’s a problem:
This experiment was done on infants, not adults.
It only lasted 20 minutes.
It assumes all cultures react the same way.
And surprise, surprise—they don’t.
Michael Rutter (1978) pointed out that different cultures handle separation differently. Japanese babies, for example, freaked out more than Western babies in the experiment, but that doesn’t mean they had bad attachment—it just meant they weren’t used to being left alone (Takahashi, 1986).
Oops.
So, is your emotionally unavailable boyfriend truly “avoidant”? Or is he just a guy who was raised not to text back immediately?
Criticism #2: Attachment Styles Aren’t Actually Fixed
This is where things get really fun. Researchers like Fraley and Spieker (2003) argue that attachment isn’t categorical—it’s a spectrum. That’s right. This argument posits that you’re not “anxious” or “secure.” You’re a mix, a mess, a complex, evolving human being.
Think about it:
If you’re in a relationship where you feel safe? You act secure.
If you’re in a relationship where you feel ignored? You get anxious.
If you’re in a relationship where your last text was left on read for 18 hours? You suddenly become avoidant.
This makes attachment a behavior, not a lifelong fate. Which means saying “I’m just an anxious type” is like saying “I just have a yelling-at-traffic style.” Maybe. Or maybe you’re just dealing with a stressful situation.
Criticism #3: People Use Attachment Theory to Justify Bad Behavior
You’ve probably heard it before:
🚩 “I can’t commit—I’m just avoidant.”
🚩 “I get jealous because I’m anxious.”
🚩 “He pulls away because he’s an avoidant type.”
Attachment theory has become a relationship horoscope people use to explain away toxic patterns.
Dr. Stan Tatkin (Wired for Love) argues that a healthy relationship isn’t about having the right attachment style—it’s about learning secure behaviors. If your partner ghosts you for three days, it’s not “his attachment wound.” It’s a sign he sucks at communication.
And even worse?
The idea that Anxious and Avoidant people are doomed to attract each other is based on a complete misinterpretation of the original research.
Gottman Institute research shows that healthy couples aren’t necessarily “secure” from the start. They just learn how to repair conflict and create security over time.
Criticism #4: Attachment Theory Is a Bad Predictor of Long-Term Success
This one’s the really smarts.If attachment styles were a reliable predictor of love, they should be able to predict divorce rates.
But they don’t.
What actually predicts long-term relationship success?
✔ Emotional regulation – Can you handle stress together?
✔ Conflict resolution skills – Can you fight and still respect each other?
✔ Shared values – Do you both want the same things?
In other words, acting securely in your relationship is more important than being securely attached from childhood(Forslund et al., 2021).
So… Is Attachment Theory a Scam?
Not quite. It’s useful, but incomplete.
Think of it like a relationship BuzzFeed quiz—fun, insightful, but not the whole story.
What should we use instead?
✅ Emotional Regulation > Attachment Labels – Instead of obsessing over “your type,” focus on staying calm and connected during stress.
✅ Secure Functioning > Secure Attachment – A secure relationship is built, not assigned at birth.
✅ The Relationship Over the Individual – Instead of worrying about your attachment style, ask: “Are we treating each other well?”
Because at the end of the day, love isn’t about finding the perfect attachment match. It’s about learning how to be safe, seen, and loved together.
Final Takeaway
Attachment theory isn’t a scam—but it’s not your destiny either.
If you’re dating someone who treats you poorly, don’t blame their childhood.
If you’re anxious, don’t accept it as fate. You are not your attachment style.
The good news? You can change. Your partner can change. Your relationship can change.
And if someone ever tells you “I can’t help how I am, it’s just my attachment style”? Send them this article.
Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.
REFERENCES:
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fraley, R. C., & Spieker, S. J. (2003). Are infant attachment patterns continuously or categorically distributed? A taxometric analysis of strange situation behavior. Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.387
Forslund, T., Granqvist, P., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Sroufe, L. A. (2021). Attachment goes to court: Child protection and custody issues. Attachment & Human Development, 23(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2020.1840762
Rutter, M. (1978). Clinical implications of attachment concepts: Retrospect and prospect. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 19(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1978.tb00432.x
Takahashi, K. (1986). Examining the strange-situation procedure with Japanese mothers and 12-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 22(3), 265–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.3.265