Attachment Styles

A detection taxonomy for classifying the attachment orientation of individuals in a user's emotional landscape.

Introduction

This glossary classifies the attachment style of individuals referenced in a user's journal entries — including the user themselves. Attachment style describes the patterned strategy a person uses to manage closeness, distance, security, and distress in relationships, formed in early caregiving environments and carried forward into adult relational life.

Classifications describe orientation and behavioral pattern, not character or moral worth. A person classified as Fearful-Avoidant is not broken; they are operating from a wound. Attachment styles exist on a spectrum, are context-sensitive, and can shift over time and across relationship types.

I.Secure Attachment Patterns

Calm group of people in warm light, suggesting safety and trust

ISecure Attachment Patterns

Two figures standing comfortably side by side, suggesting ease

Secure Attachment

Definition

The capacity to move fluidly between closeness and independence without significant anxiety in either direction. Securely attached individuals believe, at an operational level, that they are worthy of love and that relationships can be relied upon. They can tolerate imperfection in themselves and others without interpreting it as abandonment or rejection.

Detection signals

Expresses disagreement without panic about relationship survival; tolerates distance and reunion with equanimity; names own needs directly rather than through protest or withdrawal; describes relationships in balanced terms; supports the other person's autonomy without anxiety; repairs after conflict without excessive blame.

Example from data

"River said she needed a quiet night with Joyce and I made plans with Dani instead. I missed her and it was fine." Illustrative of pattern; not directly present in this dataset.

Clinical relevance

Secure attachment functions as a protective factor across virtually all wound types. Its presence in a user's relational network is significant — secure others serve as corrective attachment experiences. Its presence in the user themselves indicates a strong therapeutic foundation.

Wound connection

Does not eliminate wounds but moderates their activation. May coexist with situational stress wounds (financial, health, legal) while remaining largely intact in relational contexts.

Person standing alone at sunrise, suggesting hard-won inner security

Earned Secure Attachment

Definition

A form of security achieved through intentional therapeutic, relational, or spiritual work, by someone whose early attachment history was insecure. Unlike continuous security, earned security involves the developed capacity to reflect coherently on painful early experiences without being destabilized by them. The secure functioning is real, not performed.

Detection signals

Explicit narrative of past insecure dynamics followed by changed behavior; ability to speak about difficult caregivers with honesty and nuance; references to therapy, spiritual work, or intentional growth; demonstrates regulatory capacity that contrasts with earlier self-descriptions; acknowledges old patterns while not being ruled by them; can be vulnerable without catastrophizing.

Example from data

"I know I used to apologize for every feeling I had. I caught myself about to do that with River and I stopped. That's new." "Therapy changed how I read myself. I still get activated but I come back faster."

Clinical relevance

A recovery marker of the highest order. Its detection in a user signals that significant healing has occurred, even if active wounds remain. Should be tracked and named explicitly in analysis.

Wound connection

Commonly emerges from sustained work on abandonment, emotional deprivation, and subjugation wounds. Its presence does not eliminate wound activation but substantially raises the threshold required to trigger it.

II.Anxious Attachment Patterns

Reflective surface with ripples, suggesting hypervigilance and emotional waves

IIAnxious Attachment Patterns

Phone in hand by lamplight, suggesting hypervigilant waiting

Anxious-Preoccupied Attachment

Definition

A relational orientation organized around hypervigilance to the availability, attentiveness, and approval of attachment figures. The person's attention is chronically pulled toward the other — monitoring for signs of withdrawal, rejection, or abandonment — at the expense of their own autonomous self-experience. Proximity-seeking behaviors escalate under stress.

Linguistic markers

"I keep checking my phone for her reply," "Why hasn't he texted back," "I said it wrong and now she's going to think I'm too much," "I just need to know we're okay," "I felt invisible when she didn't mention it," "I spiral when there's silence."

Detection signals

Reassurance-seeking sequences; disproportionate distress at ambiguous relational signals; difficulty self-soothing between contacts; monitoring partner behavior for affective cues; frequent "too much" self-labeling; pre-emptive self-diminishment before sharing needs; difficulty tolerating the other person's independent time without anxiety spike.

Example from data

Sarah's entry e1: "River texted goodnight and I wanted to cry because it was kind and I do not know how to let kindness land when everything feels tight." Entry e29: "I almost said 'you didn't have to' like a reflex" — pre-emptive distancing before receiving care.

Clinical relevance

Activates abandonment, defectiveness, and emotional deprivation wounds. In Sarah, it manifests around River — not from distrust of River, but from a hyperactive threat-detection system calibrated by years of intermittent reinforcement. Distinguishing it from appropriate relational concern is essential.

Wound connection

Abandonment / Instability, Emotional Deprivation, Defectiveness / Shame, Subjugation.

Overlapping silhouettes, suggesting fused emotional boundaries

Anxious-Enmeshed Attachment

Definition

A variant of anxious attachment in which the person's emotional experience is so fused with the attachment figure's emotional state that they lose access to a stable self-referential perspective. The primary feature is not monitoring for abandonment, but absorption — taking on the other's feelings, needs, and crises as primary. Boundaries between self and other are blurred.

Linguistic markers

"When she's upset, I can't think about anything else," "His stress becomes my stress without me deciding it," "I felt responsible for her mood," "I don't know what I want because I'm too busy tracking what he wants," "I feel guilty when I'm okay and she isn't."

Detection signals

Emotional state described as contingent on another's state; difficulty identifying own feelings independent of relational context; caretaking that escalates into self-erasure; physical and emotional boundary confusion; chronic emotional fatigue from carrying others' affect; language of merging with no self-differentiated perspective retained.

Example from data

Entry e1: "I know I should not feel this way but part of me wonders if I am failing Ethan and Madison." Entry e2: "I want to be the mom who is steady and warm, not the one running on spite and coffee" — self-concept tied to children's experience rather than her own.

Clinical relevance

Often produces the subjugation and self-sacrifice wound complex. Especially important to track when the user is both partner and parent/caregiver — the dual role can normalize enmeshment as "devotion." Distinguish from healthy attunement: attunement returns to self; enmeshment does not.

Wound connection

Self-Sacrifice, Subjugation, Emotional Deprivation (reversed — the person gives what they needed but did not receive), Enmeshment / Undeveloped Self.

Open journal with morning light, suggesting reflective regulation

Anxious Attachment in Remission

Definition

A pattern in which a person with a clear anxious attachment history demonstrates consistent evidence of regulatory growth — reduced protest behavior, increased capacity to self-soothe, and the ability to receive care without immediate dismissal or escalation. The underlying sensitivity remains detectable at moderate stress; the person demonstrates active skill that modifies the behavioral output.

Detection signals

Names the anxiety pattern as old programming rather than present truth; catches themselves mid-protest and redirects; reports self-soothing attempts; tolerates relational ambiguity longer before escalating; accepts care with acknowledgment of difficulty rather than full dismissal; expresses meta-awareness of attachment activation in real time.

Example from data

Entry e9: "River texted she loves me. I believe her. Still weird to hold both: past ache and present love" — tolerating ambivalence. Entry e29: "I wanted to cry but not the good kind. I know she's not him. My body is slower to learn than my brain" — demonstrating cognitive-somatic gap awareness.

Clinical relevance

A primary recovery trajectory to track. Sarah demonstrates consistent growth signals. Tracking the gap between cognitive recognition and somatic response is particularly valuable here: the narrowing of that gap is itself a healing marker.

Wound connection

Abandonment / Instability, Defectiveness / Shame. Growth moderated by active therapy, River's consistent responsiveness, and Sarah's developing reflective function.

III.Avoidant Attachment Patterns

Lone figure at a distance under wide sky, suggesting self-sufficiency

IIIAvoidant Attachment Patterns

Closed door with shadow, suggesting deactivated attachment

Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment

Definition

A relational orientation organized around the deactivation of attachment needs — achieved by minimizing the importance of relationships, idealizing self-sufficiency, and maintaining emotional distance even from those the person cares about. The dismissive-avoidant person has learned that attachment needs will not be met, and has adapted by downregulating those needs rather than pursuing them.

Linguistic markers

"I don't really need that from anyone," "I'm not good at depending on people," "She takes things too personally," "I handle things on my own," "I don't do well with people who are too emotional," "Relationships just get complicated," "I'm fine."

Detection signals

Deflects or minimizes emotional topics without apparent distress; uses humor or intellectualization to exit vulnerability; describes relationships in transactional rather than emotional terms; reports withdrawal when partner escalates; expresses irritation at partner's emotional needs while demonstrating minimal awareness of own; limited narrative about attachment history (vague, idealized, or dismissive).

Example from data

Derek's behavioral profile is consistent with dismissive-avoidant: disappeared financially and emotionally without apparent relational distress; posted vacation photos while withholding child support; described as making Sarah feel "the unreasonable one for having standards" (entry e3).

Clinical relevance

Particularly damaging to anxiously attached partners, creating intermittent reinforcement cycles that reinforce the anxious partner's hyperactivation. Detecting dismissive-avoidance in others requires reading through Sarah's descriptions — she may frame dismissiveness as her own failure before recognizing it as the other's relational strategy.

Wound connection

Emotional Inhibition, Unrelenting Standards (self-directed), Defectiveness / Shame (masked). Often originates in emotional neglect or early dismissal of attachment needs by caregivers.

Person turning away as storm gathers, suggesting threshold-activated retreat

Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment Under Stress

Definition

A pattern in which a person who presents as relatively functional under low-stress conditions shows significant avoidant escalation — increased emotional withdrawal, shutting down, unilateral problem-solving, and reduced relational accessibility — as relationship depth or external stressors increase. The avoidance is not visible at baseline and may be mistaken for security; it activates at a threshold.

Linguistic markers

"He goes quiet when things get hard," "She pulled back right when I needed her most," "He said he needed space and just never came back to the conversation," "She handles everything herself and I can't reach her," "He got colder when things got more serious between us."

Detection signals

Avoidance escalates in proportion to relational depth or external crisis; communicates via withdrawal rather than conflict; partner describes hitting a "wall" at specific vulnerability thresholds; emotional accessibility reduces as intimacy increases; problem-solving behaviors replace relational contact under stress.

Example from data

No primary figure in the dataset clearly demonstrates this pattern in isolation. Illustrative: a person who engages warmly in group social settings (entries e27, e49) but withdraws when one-on-one vulnerability is expected.

Clinical relevance

Particularly difficult for anxiously attached partners to navigate. The signal they receive (withdrawal) triggers their worst fears (abandonment) at the moment when they most need connection. Produces the classic pursue-withdraw cycle (Johnson, 2004). Detecting this pattern early is clinically important.

Wound connection

Emotional Inhibition, Defectiveness / Shame, Vulnerability / Fragility (defended against).

IV.Fearful and Disorganized Patterns

Stormy seascape with conflicting currents, suggesting approach-avoid conflict

IVFearful and Disorganized Patterns

Two paths crossing with shadow, suggesting approach and recoil

Fearful-Avoidant (Disorganized) Attachment

Definition

The most complex attachment pattern, characterized by the simultaneous presence of two opposing survival strategies: approaching the attachment figure for comfort (anxious pull) and fleeing them as a source of threat (avoidant recoil). The person has learned that the attachment figure is both the solution to fear and the source of it — a paradox that produces disorganized, contradictory behavior without a stable regulatory strategy.

Linguistic markers

"I want her close and I need her to back off at the same time," "I pushed him away and then panicked when he gave me space," "I don't know what I want in this relationship," "I feel safest when I'm alone but loneliness is unbearable," "I ruin it every time it gets real."

Detection signals

Alternating cycles of intense closeness-seeking followed by sudden withdrawal or shutdown; initiates conflict at moments of intimacy; pushes partner away and then pursues when partner complies with distance; describes emotional state as contradictory without meta-awareness; history of trauma with attachment figures; freeze response in moments of relational intensity.

Example from data

Sarah's dynamic with Linda contains disorganized elements: she wants connection, calls are warm on the surface, yet each call activates shame and hypervigilance, producing freeze ("my voice didn't sound like me," entry e28). The attachment figure is simultaneously longed for and threatening.

Clinical relevance

The pattern most strongly associated with complex trauma, domestic violence histories, and severe schemas (Defectiveness, Mistrust / Abuse). Most resistant to change without specialized trauma-focused intervention (EMDR, IFS, Somatic Experiencing). Detecting it in the user or in key others should elevate therapeutic urgency flags.

Wound connection

Mistrust / Abuse, Defectiveness / Shame, Abandonment / Instability. In Sarah's case, the Linda relationship maps most closely; the River relationship does not.

Empty hallway in dim light, suggesting freeze and dissolution

Attachment Collapse (Acute Disorganization)

Definition

A temporary state in which a person's habitual attachment strategy — whether anxious, avoidant, or secure — dissolves under acute relational or traumatic stress. The person enters a window of behavioral disorganization characterized by freezing, flooding, dissociation, or rapidly shifting impulses that override their normal regulatory capacity. Not a permanent attachment style; a state that reveals underlying vulnerability and the limits of current regulation.

Linguistic markers

"I don't know what I'm doing," "I couldn't move or speak," "Everything I normally do stopped working," "I just froze," "My body did something I didn't choose," "I couldn't access anything that usually helps."

Detection signals

Behavior described as uncharacteristic and ego-dystonic; regulatory strategies described as absent or ineffective; dissociative language ("I watched myself"); physical freeze or shutdown responses; acute flooding without resolution; the person cannot locate their own attachment strategy in the moment.

Example from data

Entry e3: "I went cold. I do not want to parent from cold. I want to parent from clarity" — freeze toward Ethan when his tone triggered Derek's template. Entry e15: "I sat in the hallway and shook. Classic delayed adrenaline" after Evelyn's fall.

Clinical relevance

Important clinical data points. They reveal the person's threat threshold, which wound is most activated, and the limit of current regulatory resources. Detecting them accurately requires distinguishing normal emotional overwhelm from genuine strategic dissolution — look for the absence of any functional coping.

Wound connection

All wound types can produce attachment collapse; the trigger is typically the wound that has been least addressed or most recently activated.

V.Attachment-Adjacent and Complex Patterns

Group of people interacting in soft light, suggesting layered relational strategies

VAttachment-Adjacent and Complex Patterns

Hands offering a cup of tea, suggesting caretaking as proximity

Compulsive Caregiving (Attachment-Adjacent)

Definition

A relational strategy in which closeness and connection are pursued and maintained through need-meeting, fixing, and caretaking rather than through mutual vulnerability. The person generates proximity by making themselves indispensable — not purely altruistic, but because direct expression of their own needs for closeness feels dangerous or shameful. Attachment-adjacent because it is a behavioral overlay that manages attachment anxiety.

Linguistic markers

"I function better when I have someone to take care of," "I feel most comfortable when I'm useful," "I don't know what I'd be without this role," "She needs me," "If I'm not helping, I feel useless," "I put myself last because that's just who I am."

Detection signals

Consistently orients toward others' needs before own; describes satisfaction primarily in terms of others' benefit, not own pleasure; uses caretaking to justify proximity that direct need-expression would risk; difficulty identifying own needs outside caretaking role; anxiety increases when not needed; uses "I'm fine" as a relational management strategy.

Example from data

Entry e25: "I said yes before thinking, defaulting to the old pattern of being the reliable one" — auto-yes to extra shifts. Sarah's consistent management of Dani's grief, Evelyn's care, Ethan's school stress, and River's household while minimizing her own needs across 78 entries.

Clinical relevance

One of Sarah's most consistent patterns in this dataset. Both a strength (genuinely caring, reliable, skilled) and a wound-activation mechanism (prevents receiving, masks need, generates exhaustion). Tracking moments when she receives care without deflection is a key recovery metric.

Wound connection

Self-Sacrifice, Subjugation, Emotional Deprivation (the person gives what they needed and did not receive).

Polished mirror reflecting calm posture, suggesting performed composure

Pseudo-Secure (Counterfeit Security)

Definition

A presentation pattern in which a person outwardly performs the behavioral markers of secure attachment — calm confidence, apparent ease with closeness, composed affect — while avoiding the genuine vulnerability that secure attachment requires. The counterfeit security is maintained through control, emotional distance, or intellectual management. Unlike true security, it collapses under sufficient intimacy pressure or at the appearance of genuine need.

Linguistic markers

"I've got it handled," "I don't make things complicated," "I'm the stable one," "I've dealt with worse," "I've moved past all that," "I don't need to process everything out loud," "It doesn't affect me the way it used to" — delivered without evidence of actual integration.

Detection signals

Confident relational language paired with behavioral avoidance of genuine disclosure; uses composure as a management tool rather than an authentic state; others describe them as "hard to reach" beneath the warmth; resists being cared for while caring readily for others; never names a vulnerability without immediately resolving it with reassurance.

Example from data

No primary figure in the current dataset clearly demonstrates pseudo-secure attachment. Included because it is among the most clinically important and most frequently misread — visible only when the relationship deepens. Worth tracking in River as data accumulates.

Clinical relevance

Pseudo-secure partners are often initially highly attractive to anxiously attached individuals because they appear safe and stable. The failure of genuine reciprocal vulnerability eventually activates the anxious partner's deprivation wound. Detecting pseudo-security early prevents misattribution of that wound activation.

Wound connection

Emotional Inhibition, Defectiveness / Shame (managed through performance), Vulnerability (defended via competence).

Person stepping into a costume of competence, suggesting role-as-mask

Attachment Avoidance via Role Adoption

Definition

A strategy in which a person uses a fixed relational role — mediator, expert, parent-figure, comic, caregiver — as the primary channel for maintaining proximity while preventing genuine emotional exposure. The role provides a legitimate reason to remain close and to matter — without the risk of being seen as needy, vulnerable, or ordinary. The person relates from behind the role rather than from the self.

Linguistic markers

"That's just what I do," "Someone has to be the responsible one," "I'm the one people call," "I don't need anything from it, I just like helping," "I function better with a clear role," "I'm not sure who I am outside of this."

Detection signals

Role maintained with unusual rigidity, particularly where stepping out would be appropriate; anxiety or blankness when role is removed; identity described in functional rather than personal terms; consistent presence in others' crises with minimal reciprocal disclosure; discomfort when others attempt to reverse the care direction.

Example from data

Sarah's habitual mediator position in the Tasha-Renee conflict (entry e11): "I do not know if I should mediate, stay out of it, or privately check on both" — the default pull toward the mediating role even when she identifies it might not serve her.

Clinical relevance

The person receives genuine relational benefit (connection, belonging, meaning) through the role, making it harder to relinquish and harder to see. Healing requires building a self-concept that does not depend on function. In Sarah's case, this is a secondary pattern — her anxious attachment is primary — but the role adoption reinforces her difficulty receiving.

Wound connection

Emotional Inhibition, Defectiveness / Shame (role as proof of worth), Self-Sacrifice, Enmeshment (role adopted from family-of-origin system).

Two figures locked in a circling cycle, suggesting pull-and-recoil

Anxious-Avoidant Trauma Bond

Definition

A dyad-specific pattern in which two people — most often one anxiously oriented and one avoidantly oriented — become locked into an intermittent, intensity-driven attachment cycle that overrides each partner's otherwise typical orientation. Distinct from Fearful-Avoidant (Disorganized) Attachment in that the disorganization is relational and lives in the specific bond rather than as a stable individual trait. The cycle involves identifiable devaluation/discard and idealization/reconnection patterns that create biochemical dependency, often atop a history of coercive control, financial entanglement, co-parenting obligation, or unresolved violation.

Linguistic markers

"I know I should be done but I keep going back to the conversation," "When he is good he is so good — that's why I can't quit it cleanly," "I hate that I still wait for the text," "We always end up here," "I cannot tell if I love him or just need it to stop hurting," "The cycle is the relationship at this point."

Detection signals

Identifiable cycles of intensity → rupture → reconnection with the same person; the user's baseline attachment style functions differently with this one person than with everyone else; the partner's intermittent availability is treated as more meaningful than their reliable absences; financial, legal, or co-parenting entanglement keeps the dyad live past the point the user would otherwise exit; somatic markers tied specifically to this person (body activation at name, ringtone, anniversary); awareness of the cycle without a corresponding capacity to break it.

Example from data

Sarah's relationship with Derek shows trauma-bond features: ongoing co-parenting obligation keeps Derek in her nervous system long after the romantic relationship ended; body-level activation at his name and any echo of his tone ("I do not want to parent from cold," entry e3); periodic re-engagement through legal and financial necessity even when she explicitly wants no contact. A co-parenting trauma bond with the same neurological pattern as a romantic one.

Clinical relevance

Trauma bonds are particularly resistant to closure because the bonding chemistry was reinforced through unpredictability rather than safety. Detection should always be accompanied by surfacing the specific entanglement keeping the dyad live (legal, financial, child custody, shared property, religious community pressure). Therapeutic work typically requires both attachment-focused intervention (EFT, IFS) and concrete structural changes. Confusing this with Fearful-Avoidant attachment will pathologize the user instead of naming the dyadic dynamic.

Wound connection

Betrayal, Mistrust / Abuse, Powerlessness, Financial Scarcity, Co-Parenting wound complexes; often layered on top of Abandonment from earlier development.

Blank page with single ambiguous mark, suggesting absent evidence

Unclassifiable — Insufficient Data

Definition

A required sentinel value used when a person has been identified in the dataset but the available evidence does not meet the threshold required to assign any attachment style with at least low confidence. The sentinel is not a clinical conclusion about the person — it is a statement about the information state of the analysis. Using this value protects the user from receiving classifications generated by guessing, defaulting, or pattern-matching on insufficient data.

Use this value when

Only logistical mentions of the person exist ("emailed me the agenda," "shared the spreadsheet") with no behavioral, emotional, or relational detail. The person appears in a single check-in with only neutral context and no recurrence in prior history. Strong opposing signals exist within the same window and the user has not yet generated enough text for any pattern to consolidate. The text describes the user's response to the person without describing the person's relational behavior, so no inference about the other's attachment orientation is supported.

Do not use this value when

The entry contains clear attachment-relevant signals but the model is uncertain which of two specific styles fits — in that case pick the better-fitting primary, add a secondary, and lower confidence. Avoiding a difficult or stigmatizing classification (e.g., Fearful-Avoidant) would feel more comfortable: the sentinel is not a polite alternative to a real finding.

Citation expectation

Even when emitting this sentinel, supply at least one quote and a justification explaining why the data is insufficient (e.g., "Only two logistical mentions across the dataset; no relational or emotional behavior described."). This is what makes the non-finding auditable.

How Ascendance labels attachment styles

The canonical, closed vocabulary used by Ascendance's automated detection systems. Each per-person classification must emit one of these exact strings — including capitalization, spaces, hyphens, parentheses, and punctuation — for the primary (and optionally secondary) attachment-style field. New labels, abbreviations, and slash-merged combinations are not permitted; nuance is captured in the citation justification instead.

Canonical labels

Secure Attachment
Earned Secure Attachment
Anxious-Preoccupied Attachment
Anxious-Enmeshed Attachment
Anxious Attachment in Remission
Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment
Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment Under Stress
Fearful-Avoidant (Disorganized) Attachment
Attachment Collapse (Acute Disorganization)
Compulsive Caregiving (Attachment-Adjacent)
Pseudo-Secure (Counterfeit Security)
Attachment Avoidance via Role Adoption
Anxious-Avoidant Trauma Bond
Unclassifiable — Insufficient Data

Operational rules

Use the sentinel "Unclassifiable — Insufficient Data" rather than guessing. When evidence does not meet the threshold described in the glossary, emit the sentinel. Do not default to "Secure Attachment" or any specific style as a fallback.
Assign one primary style per person per check-in (or per analysis window). A secondary style may be added when the evidence clearly supports a hybrid pattern (e.g., primary Compulsive Caregiving with secondary Anxious-Preoccupied).
A single journal entry rarely contains enough behavioral repetition to support a confident classification. Per-entry detection should capture signals (quoted snippets that fit one or more styles); person-level classification aggregates across the user's history.
Style classifications describe the orientation observed toward the user, not the person's fixed identity. Someone may be Secure in their friendship network and locked in an Anxious-Avoidant Trauma Bond in a specific dyad. Surface the style the journal data actually evidences.

Citation requirements for classifications

Whenever the system assigns an attachment style — including the sentinel — it must also emit supporting citations so the user can see why the system reached that conclusion. Classifications without citations are not acceptable. Citations are required at two levels: per-entry detection (signals observed in a single check-in) and canonical classification (the durable per-person label the UI displays).

Each citation must include

Field	Requirement
`textSnippet`	A verbatim quote from the user's check-in (Context, Journal, or both). 10–60 words. No paraphrasing. No ellipsis splicing of non-adjacent fragments.
`signalCategory`	One of: linguistic marker, behavioral pattern, relational dynamic, somatic / nervous-system marker, formative history, meta-awareness, partner-described. Choose the single closest category.
`justification`	One to three sentences explaining why this snippet evidences the chosen style. Reference the specific detection signals from this glossary; do not restate the snippet.
`confidence`	low / medium / high. A snippet that suggests a style is low; one that exemplifies the style is high.

What must not happen

Assigning a style with no supporting quotes — every classification needs at least one verbatim snippet.
Paraphrasing a quote ("she said she was scared"); the snippet must be verbatim from the entry text.
Citing the system's own inferences as evidence — the citation is the user's words; analysis belongs in the justification.
Using a closed-vocabulary label inside the justification in a way that pre-determines the classification ("anxious-preoccupied because she is anxious-preoccupied") — the justification must point to the observable signal, not the label itself.

Therapeutic modalities by attachment style

Modality	Best suited for
Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT)	Anxious-preoccupied, fearful-avoidant, pursue-withdraw couple dynamics
Internal Family Systems (IFS)	Fearful-avoidant, compulsive caregiving, role-adopted avoidance
EMDR	Fearful-avoidant (disorganized), attachment collapse, trauma-rooted insecurity
Schema Therapy	All insecure patterns, especially enmeshed, self-sacrificing, and dismissive presentations
Somatic Experiencing	Fearful-avoidant, attachment collapse, body-stored threat responses
ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy)	Pseudo-secure, dismissive-avoidant, role-adopted avoidance
Mentalization-Based Therapy (MBT)	Fearful-avoidant, disorganized patterns with reflective function deficits
Relational Psychoanalytic Therapy	All patterns; particularly effective for earned secure trajectory

Foundational reading list

John Bowlby—A Secure Base(foundational theory of attachment across the lifespan)
Mary Ainsworth—Patterns of Attachment(original research establishing the primary styles)
Mary Main & Erik Hesse—Adult Attachment Interview research(disorganized attachment; earned security)
Mario Mikulincer & Phillip Shaver—Attachment in Adulthood(comprehensive adult attachment science)
Sue Johnson—Hold Me Tight(EFT application; pursue-withdraw cycle; couples attachment work)
Daniel Siegel—The Developing Mind(neuroscience of attachment; intergenerational transmission)
Peter Levine—Waking the Tiger(somatic dimension of fearful-avoidant and disorganized patterns)
Amir Levine & Rachel Heller—Attached(accessible adult attachment framework for clinical and self-help use)

This glossary classifies attachment orientations as they appear in journal text and relational narrative. It does not replace clinical assessment. Attachment style classification in this system is used to identify relational patterns, wound activations, and growth trajectories — not to fix, label, or pathologize the individuals described. All classifications are provisional and subject to revision as data density increases.