What's your attachment style?
20 questions. 3 minutes. Grounded in 30+ years of adult attachment research, written for the way you actually feel. Your shape will surface as you answer.
For researchers and curious users: read the full methodology — the framework, the 20 items, the scoring algorithm, the limitations, and the references.
Answer about your relationships.
These statements are about how you generally experience close, romantic relationships — not just your current one (or the lack of one). There are no right or wrong answers. The closer your responses match how you actually feel, the more useful your shape will be.
Attachment isn't a verdict. It's a starting point. Your shape will form on the right (or below, on mobile) as you answer.
The science behind the Attachment Style Decoder.
The Attachment Style Decoder is an LBL-original 20-item instrument grounded in the two-factor model of adult romantic attachment formalized by Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) and developed further by Fraley (2002), Mikulincer & Shaver (2007), and three decades of attachment research originating with John Bowlby (1969) and Mary Ainsworth (1978). The items are LBL-original wording. The two-factor anxiety/avoidance scoring structure is the same theoretical framework used across modern attachment research, including the ECR (Brennan et al., 1998), ECR-R (Fraley, 2000), ECR-S (Wei et al., 2007), and most large-sample attachment studies of the past two decades.
This page explains what the instrument measures, how each of the two dimensions is captured, how your shape is calculated, what each of the four archetypes means, and what this measurement does and does not tell you.
What is attachment?
Attachment theory began with John Bowlby's observations of infants separated from caregivers in the 1950s and 1960s. Bowlby proposed that humans have a biologically rooted attachment system that organizes how we seek and maintain proximity to important others — first to caregivers, later to romantic partners. Hazan and Shaver (1987) extended the framework to adult romantic relationships, and the field has since accumulated decades of empirical research connecting attachment patterns to relationship satisfaction, mental health, communication style, and conflict resolution.
Modern attachment science measures attachment along two underlying dimensions rather than as a fixed type. The first dimension is Attachment Anxiety — how much someone fears rejection or abandonment, monitors a partner's availability, and needs explicit reassurance. The second is Attachment Avoidance — how uncomfortable someone is with closeness, dependency, and emotional self-disclosure. When these two dimensions are crossed, they produce four attachment archetypes: Secure, Anxious-Preoccupied, Dismissing-Avoidant, and Fearful-Avoidant.
This tool renames these as The Anchor, The Tide, The Island, and The Storm for plain-language clarity. The underlying measurement reflects the same two-factor structure used across modern attachment research, with all items written from scratch in LBL-original wording.
Attachment isn't a verdict. Approximately 30% of adults shift toward more secure attachment over time, particularly in relationships with securely attached partners or with attachment-focused therapeutic work. Your shape today is a snapshot — not a permanent identity.
Synthesized from Fraley & Roisman, 2019 — Current Opinion in PsychologyThe two dimensions and what they measure.
The 20 LBL-original items are split evenly between two subscales: 10 items measure Attachment Anxiety, 10 items measure Attachment Avoidance. Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). Four items are reverse-coded (their high-end response indicates low insecurity, not high).
Research consistently shows the inter-correlation between the two dimensions is low (r ≈ .19 across validation studies; Brennan et al., 1998; Wei et al., 2007), confirming they are largely independent constructs rather than two ends of a single spectrum — this independence is what makes the four-quadrant model scientifically meaningful.
Fear of interpersonal rejection or abandonment, hypervigilance to partner availability, and excessive need for approval and reassurance. High scorers seek closeness compulsively and experience strong distress when partners are unresponsive.
Discomfort with closeness, dependency, and self-disclosure, accompanied by a preference for emotional distance and self-reliance. High scorers maintain rigid emotional boundaries and rely on self-soothing rather than partner-seeking.
How your shape is calculated.
The tool produces three outputs from your 20 responses: a continuous Anxiety score (1.0–7.0), a continuous Avoidance score (1.0–7.0), and a categorical archetype (one of four). The algorithm runs in three steps.
Step one — reverse-code four items. Items 8, 11, 16, and 17 are worded so that agreement reflects security rather than insecurity. Endorsing "Letting a partner into my inner world feels natural to me" indicates lower avoidance, not higher. To let these items combine arithmetically with the others, we transform each reversed response r as r′ = 8 − r. After this step, all 20 items are oriented in the same direction.
Step two — compute the two subscale scores as means. Your Anxiety score is the arithmetic mean of items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 (reversed), 13, 15, 17 (reversed), and 19. Your Avoidance score is the arithmetic mean of items 2, 4, 6, 8 (reversed), 10, 12, 14, 16 (reversed), 18, and 20. Each score ranges from 1.0 (lowest possible) to 7.0 (highest possible).
Step three — assign your archetype using a 4.0 cutoff. Continuous scores are classified into the four-quadrant model using the midpoint of the 7-point Likert scale as the cutoff. Below 4.0 is "low" on that dimension; at or above 4.0 is "high." The four resulting combinations map to The Anchor (low+low), The Tide (high+low), The Island (low+high), and The Storm (high+high).
The 4.0 cutoff is a deliberate choice. The ECR literature does not publish a canonical cutoff because attachment is fundamentally dimensional rather than categorical. We chose the scale midpoint because it is symmetric, defensible, and produces archetype frequencies that approximate the prevalence rates reported by Levine and Heller (~50% Secure, ~20% Anxious-Preoccupied, ~25% Dismissing-Avoidant, ~3-5% Fearful-Avoidant). For a deeper discussion of the cutoff and its alternatives, see the full methodology page.
The four archetypes you can land on.
The four archetypes are summaries of where your scores place you in the two-dimensional space. They are useful linguistic handles, but the underlying continuous scores are the more precise picture. If your scores fall close to the 4.0 cutoff on either dimension, your patterns likely show characteristics of two adjacent archetypes — this is normal, and the tool surfaces your continuous scores alongside your archetype label specifically to make this nuance visible.
Low Anxiety, Low Avoidance. Comfort with both intimacy and autonomy. The Anchor's first instinct in difficulty is to engage rather than escape, and to assume their partner is on their side.
High Anxiety, Low Avoidance. Loves with intensity, feels relationships in real time, and notices subtle shifts that others miss. The challenge is that the same vigilance that protects connection can also exhaust it.
Low Anxiety, High Avoidance. Self-sufficiency that has often been earned the hard way. Solitude isn't avoidance — it's where this shape metabolizes what others process out loud. The challenge: the strategies that protect can also keep love out.
High Anxiety, High Avoidance. The most complex of the four shapes. Wants intimacy and fears it. Often emerges from early relational adversity. Also the shape with the strongest evidence base for benefit from attachment-focused therapeutic work.
What this assessment doesn't capture.
Several limitations are important enough to surface explicitly.
- Self-report has limits. Recall bias, social desirability bias, and the tendency for users in active relationship distress to score differently than they would in a calmer baseline state are all real. Your score is a snapshot of one moment.
- Romantic attachment specifically. This instrument was developed for romantic attachment, like most validated attachment measures. The two underlying dimensions also generalize to friendships, family, and other close relationships, but the items reference romantic partners explicitly. If you're not currently in a romantic relationship, answer based on how you generally experience close relationships when you're in one.
- Categorical labels are summaries. The four-archetype labels simplify a continuous two-dimensional space. A user whose scores are 4.1 and 3.9 is closer to a clear Anchor than to a clear Tide — the archetype label hides this. Always read your continuous scores alongside the label.
- Sampling limits. Most published attachment-measure validation samples were drawn primarily from undergraduate students at North American universities. Population norms vary by culture, age cohort, and relationship history. This LBL-original instrument has not yet been validated against external samples — the reference data here are theoretical (centered on Likert midpoint 3.5 with SD ≈1.2, consistent with published ECR-S samples).
- Not a clinical instrument. This tool does not diagnose attachment disorders, complex trauma, or any other clinical condition. If your relationships consistently feel destabilizing, attachment-focused therapeutic approaches (Emotionally Focused Therapy, AEDP, schema therapy) have substantial research support; consult a qualified mental health professional.
The peer-reviewed evidence base.
Every claim on this page is grounded in peer-reviewed research from the attachment-theory literature. Full references below, organized by function.
Primary framework
-
Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview.In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). Guilford Press.The foundational two-factor (Anxiety, Avoidance) model that this instrument operationalizes.
-
The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)–Short Form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure.Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(2), 187–204. doi.org/10.1080/00223890701268041Provides the validation evidence for the 12-item short-form structure and the canonical psychometric properties (subscale reliability, factor structure, r=.19 inter-correlation) that informed the design of this LBL-original instrument.
-
Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview.In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). Guilford Press.
-
Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244.
Theoretical foundations
-
Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment.Basic Books.
-
Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
-
Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change.Guilford Press.
Change and earned-secure attachment
-
The development of adult attachment styles: Four lessons.Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 26–30. doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.008
-
Adult attachment, social self-efficacy, self-disclosure, loneliness, and subsequent depression for freshman college students.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 602–614.
Clinical applications
-
Attachment theory in practice: Emotionally focused therapy with individuals, couples, and families.Guilford Press.
-
Attached: The new science of adult attachment and how it can help you find — and keep — love.TarcherPerigee.
A short glossary.
The terms used in the methodology above, defined in plain language. Each links to a fuller explanation in the LifeByLogic glossary.
About the Attachment Style Decoder.
Is this a validated clinical instrument?
No. This is an LBL-original 20-item assessment developed by LifeByLogic for educational and self-reflection purposes. The items are LBL-original wording. The two-factor anxiety/avoidance scoring structure follows the same framework used across modern attachment research (Brennan et al., 1998; Fraley, 2002; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), and the four-quadrant archetype classification (Anchor / Tide / Island / Storm) maps onto the canonical four-style model (Secure, Anxious-Preoccupied, Dismissing-Avoidant, Fearful-Avoidant). For clinical assessment, work with a licensed mental-health professional who can administer validated measures and interpret results in clinical context. Read the full methodology for complete details.
Can my attachment style change?
Yes. Approximately 30% of adults shift toward more secure attachment over time (Fraley & Roisman, 2019), particularly in relationships with securely attached partners or with attachment-focused therapeutic work. Attachment styles describe how you currently move in close relationships — not who you are permanently.
What if I'm between two archetypes?
You probably are — attachment is dimensional, not categorical. The four-archetype labels are summaries of where you fall on the two underlying dimensions (Anxiety and Avoidance). The continuous scores shown alongside your archetype are the more precise picture. If your scores are close to the 4.0 cutoff on either dimension, your patterns likely show characteristics of two adjacent archetypes.
Why romantic relationships specifically?
This instrument was developed for romantic attachment, following the convention used by most modern attachment measures. The underlying two-factor model also generalizes to friendships, family, and other close relationships, but the items reference romantic partners explicitly. If you're not currently in a romantic relationship, answer based on how you generally experience close relationships when you're in one.
Is this private?
Yes. All computation happens in your browser. Your answers are never transmitted to LifeByLogic or any third party. If you choose to save your result, it's stored in your browser's local storage on your own device and is never sent anywhere.
Is this a clinical instrument?
No. This is an educational decision-support tool. It does not diagnose attachment disorders, complex trauma, or any other clinical condition. If your relationships consistently feel destabilizing, attachment-focused therapeutic approaches (Emotionally Focused Therapy, AEDP, schema therapy) have substantial research support; please consult a qualified mental health professional for clinical guidance.
How to cite this tool
If you reference this assessment in research, writing, or teaching, please cite it as you would any web-based tool. The citation is attributed to LifeByLogic as the publishing entity.