Dynamic-Maturational Model of Attachment and Adaptation (DMM): A New Lens on Relationships
Monday, February 10, 2025.
The Dynamic-Maturational Model of Attachment and Adaptation (DMM) is a cutting-edge framework that reshapes our understanding of relationships, attachment, and emotional regulation.
Developed by Patricia Crittenden, DMM builds upon the foundational work of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, but expands their theories with a strong emphasis on how partners process information in response to danger and stress.
In the context of couples therapy, DMM offers profound insights into how attachment strategies shape relationship dynamics, conflict resolution, and emotional connection.
The Origins and Thought Leaders Behind DMM
DMM evolved from classic attachment theory but diverged by integrating insights from developmental psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science. Dr. Patricia Crittenden, a student of Mary Ainsworth, advanced attachment research by introducing a model that accounts for the complexity of human adaptation to risk and trauma.
Crittenden’s work was heavily influenced by Bowlby’s attachment theory but challenged its rigid categorization.
While Bowlby emphasized early childhood experiences as determinants of later attachment, Crittenden introduced the idea that attachment patterns are not fixed but adaptive strategies shaped by experience and context.
Her book, Raising Parents: Attachment, Representation, and Treatment, provides a comprehensive explanation of how folks develop attachment strategies that are not merely "Secure" or "Insecure" but nuanced adaptations to the perceived level of safety in their environment.
The Challenge of Discussing DMM and the Astrology of Attachment in Popular American Culture
One of the greatest obstacles in discussing the Dynamic-Maturational Model of Attachment and Adaptation (DMM) is that American popular culture often oversimplifies attachment into bite-sized, meme-friendly categories.
Concepts like "Anxious," "Avoidant," and "Secure" attachment have been widely disseminated on social media, sometimes reduced to personality quizzes and pop-psychology soundbites. While I challenged much of the research on Anxious Attachment, I must plead guilty as well.
Moreover, the rise of the Astrology of Attachment, a trend where attachment styles are discussed in the same breath as zodiac signs, further distorts the nuances of the theory.
While Attachment Theory is rooted in developmental psychology and neuroscience, its transformation into a pop culture talking point can sometimes lead to misleading generalizations that reinforce stereotypes rather than promote understanding.
For instance, instead of viewing attachment behaviors as dynamic and context-dependent, many online discussions treat them as fixed traits—similar to horoscopes—suggesting that "Avoidants" will always run from commitment or that "Anxious" partners are inherently needy. Researchers in particular have tended to pile on unhealthy critiques upon Anxious Attachment Styles.
This black-and-white thinking is fundamentally at odds with the DMM perspective, which emphasizes how attachment behaviors are adaptive responses rather than rigid categories.
Bringing DMM into the mainstream requires breaking through these simplified narratives and encouraging a more nuanced conversation about how people process information in relationships.
Unlike the static labels found in pop psychology, DMM promises a flexible, evolving model that accounts for personal history, trauma, and adaptation over time—concepts that are more difficult to package into quick-fix explanations but are ultimately more transformative.
Core Principles of DMM in Relationships
Unlike traditional attachment models that categorize us into "Secure," "Anxious," or "Avoidant" types, DMM offers a more dynamic approach, recognizing that attachment behaviors evolve in response to threat and perceived danger.
Attachment as a Survival Strategy
DMM views attachment behaviors as functional adaptations rather than disorders. A person who appears avoidant may not be "fearful of intimacy" in a pathological sense but may have learned that emotional restraint was necessary for survival in their family of origin.
For example, in couples therapy, a partner who dismisses emotional concerns may have adapted this behavior due to an unpredictable childhood environment. Under DMM, therapy focuses on reframing these behaviors as learned responses rather than labeling them as problematic.
Information Processing and Relationship Conflict
DMM emphasizes how folks process information under stress. Some people distort, omit, or exaggerate information based on past experiences with attachment figures. This can lead to misunderstandings, defensiveness, and escalation in relationships.
For instance, one partner may subconsciously amplify emotional distress as a strategy to gain attention and care, while the other might minimize or ignore distress due to learned coping mechanisms. Recognizing these strategies allows therapists to adjust interventions accordingly.
Reframing "Insecure" Attachment as Adaptation
Instead of viewing attachment insecurity as dysfunction, DMM highlights it as an adaptation to past relational environments. This shifts therapy from "fixing" attachment issues to helping partners recognize their patterns and integrate new, healthier relational strategies.
A partner who learned to be hyper-independent due to neglect may struggle with expressing vulnerability in marriage. Rather than demanding change, DMM-based therapy encourages insight into why these patterns exist and helps intimate partners develop a more adaptive approach to intimacy.
DMM’s Applications in Couples Therapy
DMM has practical applications in therapy, especially for couples struggling with deep-seated attachment wounds and miscommunication.
Identifying Attachment Strategies
Therapists trained in DMM use specialized assessments, such as the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), to determine how humans process relational danger. This can reveal unconscious patterns that affect how partners perceive, interpret, and respond to each other.
Addressing Mismatched Attachment Strategies
Couples often experience distress when their attachment strategies clash.
A partner who learned to self-soothe and withdraw when stressed may be in conflict with a partner who requires emotional validation and reassurance. Understanding these differences allows therapists to bridge gaps in emotional communication rather than pathologizing either partner.
Promoting Secure Functioning Over Labels
Traditional attachment models often focus on helping couples develop the Holy Grail of "Secure Attachment."
DMM, however, aims for Secure Functioning, meaning that even partners with different attachment histories can create a stable and fulfilling relationship by understanding and adapting to each other's needs.
For example, a couple where one partner exhibits avoidant tendencies and the other leans anxious can be coached to develop a relationship where the avoidant partner practices small, manageable acts of emotional engagement, while the anxious partner learns self-regulation techniques to ease distress.
Final thought
The Dynamic-Maturational Model of Attachment and Adaptation (DMM) could concievably revolutionize how we understand attachment in relationships.
The innovation of viewing attachment behaviors as adaptations rather than dysfunctions, allows couples to develop greater empathy for one another and navigate relational challenges with insight and flexibility. DMM could become a compelling new model for working with attachment issues clinically.
Here’s what I find intriguing.
Therapists trained in DMM are equipping couples with tools to process relational conflict differently, reframe attachment wounds, and develop secure-functioning relationships—not by enforcing rigid ideals, but by understanding the adaptive strategies that each partner brings into the relationship.
In other words, for those who can tolerate above average intimacy, DMM could become a strength-based model.
As the Dynamic-Maturational Model of Attachment and Adaptation (DMM) model gains traction, it has the potential to inform how we approach relationship healing, offering a more nuanced and compassionate understanding of attachment and love in an ever-changing world.
Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.
REFERENCES:
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. Basic Books.
Crittenden, P. M. (1981). Abusing, neglecting, problematic, and adequate dyads: Differentiating by patterns of interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 27, 1–18.
Crittenden, P.M. & DiLalla, D.L. (1988). Compulsive compliance: The development of an inhibitory coping strategy in infancy. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 585–599.
Crittenden, P.M. & Ainsworth M.D.S. (1989). Child maltreatment and attachment theory. In D. Cicchetti and V. Carlson (Eds.), Handbook of child maltreatment, (pp. 432–463). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Crittenden, P.M. (1993). "An information-processing perspective on the behaviour of neglectful parents". Criminal Justice and Behavior. 20 (1): 27–48. doi:10.1177/0093854893020001004. S2CID 144670070..
Crittenden, P.M. (1995). Attachment and psychopathology. In S. Goldberg, R. Muir, J. Kerr, (Eds.), John Bowlby's attachment theory: Historical, clinical, and social significance (pp. 367–406). New York: The Analytic Press.
Crittenden, P.M. (1997). Truth, error, omission, distortion, and deception: The application of attachment theory to the assessment and treatment of psychological disorder. In S. M. C. Dollinger and L.F. DiLalla (Eds.) Assessment and Intervention Across the Lifespan, (pp. 35–76) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crittenden, P.M. (1997). Toward an integrative theory of trauma: A dynamic-maturational approach. In D. Cicchetti and S. Toth (Eds.), The Rochester Symposium on Developmental Psychopathology, Vol. 10. Risk, Trauma, and Mental Processes (pp. 34–84). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Crittenden, P.M. (2000). A dynamic-maturational model of the function, development, and organization of human relationships. In R. S. L. Mills, & S. Duck (Eds.), Developmental psychology of personal relationships (pp. 199–218). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Crittenden, P. M. (2006). A dynamic-maturational model of attachment. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 27, 105-115.
Crittenden, P.M. (2008). Why do inadequate parents do what they do? In O. Mayseless (Ed.) Parenting Representations, ed. O. Mayseless, (pp. 388–433). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crittenden, P.M. & Newman, L. (2010). Comparing models of borderline personality disorder: Mothers’ experience, self-protective strategies, and dispositional representations. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 15, 433–452.
Crittenden, P.M. & Landini, A. (2011). Assessing Adult Attachment: A Dynamic Maturational Approach to Discourse Analysis. New York: W.W. Norton.
Crittenden, P.M., Farnfield, S., Landini, A. & Grey, B. (2013). Assessing attachment for family court decision-making: A forensic protocol for empirically based evidence regarding attachment, Journal of Forensic Practice. p. 237-248.
Crittenden, P.M., Dallos, R., Landini, A., Kozlowska, K. (2014). Attachment & Family Therapy. London: Open University Press.
Crittenden, P.M. (2015). Raising Parents: Attachment, Parenting and Child Safety, 2nd ed., London: Routledge.
Crittenden, P. M. (2016). Raising Parents: Attachment, Representation, and Treatment. Routledge.
Crittenden, P. M. (2017). Formulating autism systemically: Part 1: A review of the published literature and case assessments. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22, 378–389. DOI: 10.1177/1359104517713241
Crittenden, P. M., Robson, K., Tooby, A., & Fleming, C. (2017). Are mothers’ protective attachment strategies related to their children's strategies? Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. DOI: 10.1177/1359104517704027
Crittenden P.M. and Baim C. (2017). Using assessment of attachment in child care proceedings to guide intervention. In: Dixon L, Perkins D, Craig L and Hamilton-Giachritsis (eds) What Works in Child Protection: An Evidenced-Based Approach to Assessment and Intervention in Care Proceedings. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 385–402.