Why Insecure Attachment Styles Are on the Rise: What the Research Tells Us

Written by Stephanie Underwood, RSW

Why Insecure Attachment Styles Are on the Rise Adults: A Look at the Latest Research

The truth is, there is very little comprehensive research tracking the percentage of people’s attachment styles across the general population. While understanding attachment theory has revolutionized how we look at relationships, mental health, and development, gathering large-scale, representative data on adult attachment styles has not been a research priority since Bowlby’s foundational work.

The idea that 50% of the population have a secure attachment style? Well, that may have been accurate… 75 years ago. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been any large research studies done since then because, these types of studies are quite expensive. So researchers have been recycling the same averages since the 1950’s

Having accurate data on the distribution of attachment styles, secure, anxious, avoidant, and fearful-avoidant, could offer powerful insights into mental health trends, relational dynamics, and cultural changes. Unfortunately, most of the existing research is based on convenience samples, often limited to university students in North America. These studies typically lack diversity in age, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and life experience, making it difficult to draw broad conclusions, especially because these are important factors that have a direct impact on a person’s attachment style.

Despite these limitations, the data we do have paints a concerning picture: insecure attachment styles, especially avoidant and fearful-avoidant, are on the rise, and secure attachment is becoming less common.

In this blog post, we’ll explore the research that we currently have on adult attachment styles, the trends emerging from it, and the contributing factors that may be fueling this transformation in how we connect with others.

What the Data Shows About Adult Attachment Styles

A growing body of research suggests that secure attachment is on the decline, while insecure attachment styles, particularly avoidant and fearful-avoidant, are on the rise. A 2014 meta-analysis by Konrath and colleagues found that:

• Secure attachment rates dropped from 49% in 1988 to 42% by 2011.

• Avoidant attachment increased by 56% over that same period.

• Fearful-avoidant attachment also rose significantly, though it’s less consistently measured.

• Anxious attachment remained relatively stable, with less pronounced change.

More recent findings suggest these trends have continued into the 2010s and likely the 2020s, especially among younger adults in North America. However, it’s important to note that most of this data comes from college student samples, meaning broader national data is still limited. This is a fairly important limitation which impacts the accuracy of these percentages.

Why Is This Happening? Key Hypotheses

The big question that we have is why. What are the factors that are having an impact on the increase in insecure attachment styles? Particularly, what are the factors that are contributing to a rise in Avoidant Attachment.

Researchers have proposed several theories to explain this shift toward insecure attachment. Keep in mind that the following behaviours and relational dynamics are not “bad” - they serve to explain the answers to the question of why there is a rise in avoidant attachment.

Loss of Interpersonal Trust

At the heart of secure attachment is the belief that others are dependable, emotionally available, and safe to connect with. This stems from evolutionary theory where children must develop an attachment with the primary caregiver to be able to survive. When that trust is disrupted, either by early relational wounds or larger cultural forces, what emerges is often mistrust, self-protection, and emotional distancing. This is the core of avoidant and fearful-avoidant attachment.

Over the past couple of decades, researchers have observed a shift in how people relate to others: more adults report feeling uncomfortable relying on someone emotionally, more describe relationships as risky or burdensome, and fewer endorse statements that reflect comfort with vulnerability and intimacy. These trends point to a decline in interpersonal trust, which refers to a deep sense of safety in others’ intentions, reliability, and emotional presence.

But how did this come to be?

Some theorists suggest that interpersonal trust has been eroded by repeated experiences of emotional inconsistency, whether from caregivers, romantic partners, or broader social dynamics. Others point to macro-level influences, such as rising rates of divorce and family instability, increased exposure to betrayal or emotional neglect, and even the normalization of ghosting, canceling plans last-minute, and shallow online interactions. When unpredictability becomes the norm, people often learn, consciously or unconsciously, that they are safest when emotionally self-sufficient.

This shift doesn’t just happen in childhood. The way trust is formed and reinforced in adulthood is also shaped by repeated relational experiences. For example, dating apps that foster superficial engagement, social media that rewards image over authenticity, and friendships marked by convenience rather than consistency can all contribute to a sense that people are not to be counted on emotionally. When that becomes your default expectation, it becomes very difficult to develop secure attachment - even if part of you deeply longs for connection.

Cultural Emphasis on Individualism

North American culture heavily promotes self-sufficiency and independence, which may discourage the vulnerability needed for secure attachment. North American culture has long prioritized values like independence, self-sufficiency, and personal success. But in recent decades, these values have intensified, often at the expense of connection, interdependence, and emotional vulnerability. This cultural shift toward hyper-individualism has quietly shaped how we approach relationships, often in ways that discourage secure attachment.

In a secure attachment, emotional interdependence is not only expected but embraced. People feel safe relying on one another, knowing that closeness doesn’t threaten their identity, it enhances it. But in a culture that glorifies self-reliance, needing others can be interpreted as weakness. We begin to view emotional dependence with suspicion, equating it with being “too needy,” “co-dependent,” or “not having your life together.” As a result, many people—especially those with avoidant or fearful-avoidant tendencies, learn to suppress their need for closeness to protect their sense of autonomy.

This cultural mindset also influences parenting styles. Messages like “teach them to self-soothe,” “don’t spoil them,” or “they need to learn to be independent” are often rooted in fear of emotional dependence. These early lessons are internalized, and children grow into adults who are uncomfortable asking for help, distrustful of intimacy, and unsure how to express emotional needs—classic features of avoidant attachment.

Another subtle layer of this dynamic is found in the wellness and self-improvement industry, where the narrative often centers on “working on yourself first” before entering a relationship. While growth and healing are essential, this message can sometimes imply that we must be perfectly healed or completely independent before we’re worthy of love or connection. It reinforces the idea that connection is secondary to self-optimization, rather than understanding that relationships are part of what help us heal, regulate, and grow.

In short, when a culture idealizes rugged individualism and emotional self-sufficiency, it creates conditions where emotional closeness feels risky, optional, or even shameful. This doesn’t mean people don’t want connection, many do, but it means we’re culturally primed to push it away, even when we crave it. That internal conflict is a hallmark of insecure attachment.

What did relationships look like in past decades, and what were the impacts of attachment on those relationships? How did individualism develop of time and what were the possible impacts on attachment?

1800s to Early-Mid 1900s: Relational Individualism (Rooted in Community & Roles)

In earlier periods, especially in the 1800s through to the mid-20th century, individualism existed, but it was deeply embedded within communal, familial, and religious structures. People still had strong personal identities, but those identities were shaped through their roles in relationships: as a spouse, parent, child, neighbor, or member of a church or town.

• Life was relational by default. People married young and often stayed in long-term partnerships out of duty, survival, and shared community values.

• Interdependence was expected. Men relied on women for domestic labor and emotional support; women relied on men for financial security (due to systemic barriers). Families often lived close together or in multi-generational homes.

• Self-expression existed, but within limits. The focus wasn’t on personal fulfillment as much as fulfilling your role within a unit—family, marriage, or society.

• Emotional needs were often suppressed, but the structure provided stability. You knew your role, your place, and your people—even if it wasn’t always emotionally safe or fulfilling.

In this context, attachment was more stable, but sometimes rigid. There wasn’t as much room to leave relationships or re-invent oneself, but the cultural expectation of staying together created a level of predictability and emotional continuity that helped foster trust (even if it didn’t always lead to emotional closeness).

1990s: The Transitional Period

By the 1990s, we begin to see the rise of modern individualism, driven by media, increased access to higher education, changing gender roles, and more liberal social values. This was a transition period where identity started to shift from “who you are to others” to “who you are for yourself.”

• Self-expression became central. Personal happiness and career success were rising in importance.

• Divorce rates had normalized, giving people more freedom to leave unhappy relationships—but also introducing instability into family systems.

• Therapy and self-help gained popularity, reinforcing the value of introspection and personal healing.

• Women’s independence grew, challenging traditional roles but also complicating attachment dynamics (e.g., tension between autonomy and connection).

Attachment in this era became more fluid. People were starting to ask deeper questions about emotional safety and fulfillment, but hadn’t yet arrived at widespread relational literacy. There was more freedom, but also more confusion and instability.

Modern Society (2000s to Present): Hyper-Individualism and Emotional Autonomy

Today, we live in a time of hyper-individualism, where personal freedom, emotional independence, and “knowing your worth” are prized above almost all else.

Relationships are seen as additive, not essential. You’re supposed to be complete on your own first

• “Boundaries” are prioritized over emotional flexibility. While boundaries are necessary, in modern culture, they’re sometimes weaponized as tools to avoid vulnerability.

• Vulnerability is risky. Many people fear being “too much” or “too needy” and are conditioned to present as self-sufficient even when they’re craving connection.

• Emotional labor is outsourced. Instead of leaning on each other, people turn to podcasts, self-help books, or AI to regulate emotions—sometimes as a substitute for relational repair.

• Technology enables detachment. Ghosting, breadcrumbing, and endless swiping foster a disposable view of connection.

In this modern setting, attachment is deeply strained. People want closeness but are often terrified of what it might cost. They’ve been hurt, betrayed, or left enough times that avoidant and fearful patterns feel safer than risking true intimacy.

Changes in Relationship Norms

More people are delaying marriage, living alone, and engaging in short-term relationships. These changes reduce opportunities for secure bonding and increase exposure to relational instability.

in earlier generations, particularly throughout the early to mid-1900s, relationships were more likely to follow a linear, stable trajectory. People typically partnered young, often with someone from their local community, and stayed together for decades. While those relationships weren’t always healthy or equitable, they did offer a kind of emotional predictability and relational continuity that helped reinforce trust.

In contrast, our relationship landscape is far more fragmented in today’s world. Modern adults often experience multiple breakups, casual dating, ghosting, betrayal, and relational ambiguity, all of which can be seen as micro or macro breaches in attachment. These repeated ruptures create cumulative emotional residue, especially when there’s no opportunity to safely repair or process them. Over time, this can foster a belief system that others are unreliable or unsafe, which fuels avoidant or fearful-avoidant attachment patterns.

What’s particularly interesting is that each of these ruptures may not feel “traumatic” in isolation, but collectively, they erode our capacity for relational security. We’re essentially creating attachment systems on shaky ground, constantly rebuilding, grieving, and protecting, without ever feeling anchored in trust.

Technology and Digital Connection

Social media and dating apps have changed the way people relate. Superficial interactions, ghosting, and constant comparison can erode the emotional safety needed for secure attachment to form.

Decline in Empathy and Rise in Narcissism

Some researchers argue that generational changes in empathy and personality traits, like rising narcissism, contribute to the increase in insecure attachment, especially dismissive styles.

Over the past few decades, researchers have observed a measurable increase in narcissistic traits, particularly among younger generations in North America. Studies by Twenge, Campbell, and others found that narcissism scores on personality inventories like the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) have been steadily climbing since the 1980s. But to understand why this matters for attachment, we have to look beyond the surface traits, like entitlement or grandiosity, and explore what lies underneath.

At its root, narcissism is often a defense against deep emotional vulnerability and a fragile sense of self-worth. It develops when a child’s emotional needs—especially for attunement, unconditional love, and mirroring, are inconsistently met or entirely overlooked.

Psychodynamic and attachment-informed theories suggest that a child develops narcissistic defenses when caregivers (often the mother, especially in early development) are:

• Emotionally unavailable, preoccupied, or withdrawn,

• Intrusive or controlling, shaping the child’s identity around performance or compliance,

• Overpraising in some areas while neglecting emotional attunement, which creates a false self to maintain attachment.

In these cases, the child doesn’t internalize a secure, stable sense of being loved simply for existing. Instead, love feels conditional, based on achievement, image, or emotional caretaking of the parent. To cope, the child may develop a narcissistic persona, one that appears confident, independent, or superior, but that hides profound feelings of shame, inadequacy, or abandonment.

This false self, while protective, often leads to dismissive or fearful-avoidant attachment styles in adulthood. Why? Because intimacy threatens to expose the very wounds the narcissistic mask was designed to protect. Vulnerability feels dangerous, so relationships are either idealized and then devalued, or kept at arm’s length to avoid emotional exposure.

In modern culture, these tendencies are reinforced, not healed. Social media encourages curated identities and external validation. Hustle culture rewards performance over presence. “Self-love” is often confused with ego inflation, rather than rooted in secure, self-compassionate attachment. As a result, we now see more individuals, especially young adults, struggling with:

• Shaky self-worth, masked by perfectionism or defensiveness,

• Emotional avoidance, rooted in fear of being truly seen,

• Transactional relationships, where depth is replaced with validation or control.

So while the rise in narcissism might look like a cultural phenomenon on the surface, it often has deep attachment-based roots, particularly in early maternal (or primary caregiver) dynamics where attunement, mirroring, and emotional safety were absent or inconsistent. And as these patterns go unaddressed, they contribute to generational cycles of insecure attachment.

Are We Studying This Enough? A Research Gap

Despite growing concern, there is surprisingly little consistent, long-term data tracking attachment style prevalence across the general adult population. Most studies rely on short-term or convenience samples, and very few differentiate between the four main attachment styles in a standardized way. This lack of data makes it difficult to form concrete conclusions about societal changes, but the pattern is clear: insecure attachment styles are rising, and our cultural environment may be playing a major role.

What This Means for Healing and Growth

If you’ve noticed avoidant or anxious tendencies in yourself or others, you’re not alone. These patterns are becoming more common, but they’re not fixed. Understanding the root causes, and the larger social context, can empower people to move toward more secure relationships. Therapy, self-awareness, and intentional relationship-building are powerful tools for healing.

While there’s still much we don’t know about how adult attachment styles are evolving, current research paints a clear picture: secure attachment is declining, and avoidant and fearful-avoidant styles are increasing, especially in young adults. These changes reflect deeper cultural and psychological shifts that deserve more attention. Whether you’re a therapist, a researcher, or someone on your own healing journey, acknowledging these trends is the first step in changing them.

---

References

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.

Konrath, S., Chopik, W. J., Hsing, C., & 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), 326–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314530516

Sprecher, S. (2021). Trends in self-reported adult attachment in the United States: 1990s to 2019. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(5), 1442–1460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407521999862

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age of entitlement. Atria Books.

Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 875–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00507.x

Zhou, H., & Jenkins, A. S. (2020). The impact of social media and dating app use on adult attachment style and relational trust. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(9), 2485–2507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520921465

Madey, S. F., & Rodgers, L. (2009). The effect of attachment and self-esteem on the perception of romantic partners. Journal of Social Psychology, 149(6), 600–617. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.149.6.600-617

Schore, A. N. (2003). Affect dysregulation and disorders of the self. W. W. Norton & Company.