Attachment Style Test
Your attachment style is how you tend to handle closeness and distance with the people you love. This quiz scores your anxiety and avoidance and places you near one of four styles: secure, anxious, avoidant or fearful-avoidant; read how attachment shapes relationships.
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.
Last reviewed
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.
Fearful-avoidant patterns often emerge from past relational adversity. If your relationships consistently feel destabilizing, attachment-focused therapy is worth considering.
Validated approaches include:
- Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT)
- Accelerated Experiential Dynamic Psychotherapy (AEDP)
- Schema Therapy for relational patterns
- The Tide, top left: anxious-preoccupied, about 20% of adults
- The Storm, top right: fearful-avoidant, about 3 to 5% of adults
- The Anchor, bottom left: secure, about 50% of adults
- The Island, bottom right: dismissing-avoidant, about 25% of adults
Up: attachment anxiety, from 1 to 7. Across: attachment avoidance, from 1 to 7. The dashed lines mark 4 on each.
Your style comes from two scores, anxiety and avoidance, each out of 7. Your report reads the pair together: what sets your pattern off, what it gives you, and the pull inside it.
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, Waller, and Brennan (2000), Mikulincer & Shaver (2007), and more than five decades of attachment research that began 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 et al., 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. Longitudinal evidence indicates both stability and the possibility of change, while attachment patterns appear less malleable in adulthood than earlier in development. The cited review does not provide a universal personal change rate or establish that a specific partner or intervention causes change. 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).
In the studies behind the ECR and its short form, Anxiety and Avoidance emerged as two distinct factors (Brennan et al., 1998; Wei et al., 2007), confirming they are separate 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 and defensible. We do not yet have data on how often each archetype comes up with this cutoff; the population figures shown with each archetype are the ones Levine and Heller report (~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.
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 with anxiety 4.1 and avoidance 3.9 is labeled The Tide, yet is only 0.1 away from The Anchor and from The Storm — 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, and the tool shows no norms for your scores; the population percentages beside each archetype come from Levine and Heller (2010), not from people who took this test.
- 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) are worth considering; consult a qualified mental health professional.
The sources behind this tool.
The research and books this page draws on, 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 and factor structure) that informed the design of this LBL-original instrument.
-
Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244.
-
An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350
Theoretical foundations
-
Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment.Basic Books.
-
Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation.Lawrence Erlbaum.
-
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
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 et al., 2000; 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, but not on a guaranteed schedule. Fraley and Roisman (2019) describe both stability and change in adult attachment patterns, and emphasize that early experiences do not determine adult outcomes. Their review does not support a universal percentage or show that a secure partner or particular therapy will cause change. 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). Your two continuous scores, which open on this page with the report, 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, and your answers are never transmitted to LifeByLogic or any third party. This browser keeps your two scores and your attachment pattern in its own storage, on your own device, so the report page can find them, until you clear your browsing data. If you choose to save your result to a free LifeGraph+ account, your anxiety and avoidance scores and your pattern are kept there with the date; until you buy the report for that result, a free account shows only its style. If you open the report's checkout, only your two scores and your pattern go to checkout, and this browser tab keeps your answers until you close it, so a canceled checkout comes back to your result and a paid one opens your whole result on this page.
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) are worth considering; 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.