Both Bowlby’s and Ainsworth’s attachment theory are used to conceptualize close interpersonal relationships. This theory states that people have core systems (i.e. attachments) and this is modifiable by experience.

Bowlby’s attachment theory states that humans have an innate attachment behavioural system. This motivates them to seek proximity to significant others (i.e. attachment figures). The main goal is to maintain adequate protection and support. Though the attachment system remains active over a lifespan, people become increasingly able to gain comfort from internal representations of attachment figures (i.e. attachment figure does not have to be physically present).

Attachment working models refer to the mental presentation of the self and others. These working models include procedural knowledge about how social interactions unfold and how one can best handle stress and distress;

1. Secure-base script (secure attachment)
   This refers to a positive relational if-then script (e.g. if I encounter stress, my partner will help). This can mitigate distress (1), promote optimism (2) and cope with life’s problems (3).
2. Sentinel script (anxious attachment)
   This includes a high sensitivity to clues of impending danger and a tendency to warn others about danger while staying close to those in the dangerous situation.
3. Rapid fight-flight script (avoidant attachment)
   This refers to rapid self-protective responses to danger without consulting other people or seeking help from them.

An attachment style refers to a person’s chronic pattern of relational expectations (1), emotions (2) and behaviours (3) that results from attachment experiences. Attachment is crucial for maintaining emotional stability (1), developing positive attitudes towards the self and others (2) and forming satisfying close relationships (3).

Attachment insecurities interfere with prosocial attitudes and behaviour during interactions with people who are distressed or in need. A negative attachment is associated with more negative interactions (1), emotions (2) and less responsiveness to a partner’s needs (3).

Individual differences in attachment are the result of the availability (1), responsiveness (2) and supportiveness (3) of an attachment figure. The individual differences can be measured along avoidance and anxiety. Avoidance refers to the extent to which a person distrusts others’ goodwill and relies on deactivating strategies for coping with attachment insecurities. Anxiety refers to the degree to which a person worries that a relationship partner will be unavailable in times of need and relies on hyperactivation strategies. More avoidant people are less inclined to forgive and feel less grateful.

The individual differences in attachment shape cognitive-motivational predispositions and this biases the way people attend, interpret and respond to information that arises during a social interaction. Attachment-related patterns of social information processing predict interpersonal behaviour.

Personal predispositions (e.g. attitudes) are a part of a person’s attachment style. It is manifested in a person’s goal structure (i.e. goals in social interaction) and is demonstrated in a person’s declarative knowledge (1), procedural knowledge (2) and beliefs (3). This predisposition biases the acquisition and use of social information during an interaction via top-down schematic processes. This favours attention that reinforces expectations and encourages the ignoring or dismissal of information that invalidates expectation (e.g. a securely attached person sees an attachment figure do something bad and will ignore or dismiss this rather than change attachment).

Attachment security (i.e. world is safe and interesting) is obtained if the attachment figure is reliably available and responsive. However, if attachment security is not obtained, then negative attachment working models are developed. This leads a person to use secondary strategies to regulate emotions;

1. Hyperactivation (anxious attachment)
   This refers to energetic, insistent attempts to induce a relationship partner to pay more attention and provide better support or care (e.g. clinging; controlling).
2. Deactivation (avoidant attachment)
   This refers to suppression or inhibition of proximity-seeking inclinations and actions (1), discounting of threats that may activate the attachment system (2) and determination to handle stress alone (3).

The deactivation strategy results in people maintaining physical and emotional distance from others or being uncomfortable with intimacy. It favours defensive processes of self-enhancement and self-inflation. Hyperactivation negatively biases anxious people’s self-representations.

Anxious strategies cause attention to be redirected to self-relevant sources of distress (e.g. self-presentation that emphasizes helplessness as this triggers others’ support). Avoidant strategies divert attention from self-relevant sources of distress and encourage the adoption of a self-reliant attitude that emphasizes strengths and weaknesses. Avoidant attachment is associated with more negative views of others whereas anxious attachment is associated with more ambivalent views of others.

The steps of information processing are attention (1), perception (2) and interpretation of information (3). Interpretation requires information regarding others’ motives and intentions (1), expectation (2), appraisal of the situation (3) and appraisal of one’s coping capabilities (i.e. secondary appraisal) (4). This is quick and updated during social interaction. Goal selection in social interactions is accompanied by discrete emotional reactions that are triggered by specific patterns of cognitive appraisals (e.g. fear leads to withdrawal).

Response generation is influenced by mental representations. The sequence of response evaluation and decision (RED) states that a person can quickly decide to enact the generated response without any consideration of the consequences or consider and evaluate the consequences. The considerations include:

• Estimation of likelihood of success.
• Estimation of likelihood of consequences.
• Assigning value to the response.
• Assigning value to the consequences.

The steps are influenced by contextual factors and predispositions (e.g. attachment). This means that attachment influences behaviour. A person’s attachment (in)security biases several things;

• Less securely attached individuals are less accurate in decoding facial expression of emotions.
• Less securely attached individuals have more pessimistic and catastrophic appraisals of threatening interpersonal events (e.g. divorce).
• Less securely attached individuals are more likely to attribute a partner’s negative behaviour to a stable and global cause (e.g. lack of love).
• Less securely attached individuals’ perceived support can be positively influenced by the partner’s actual supportive behaviour.
• Less securely attached individuals tend to have a biased self-appraisal during social interaction.
• Less securely attached individuals tend to rely on external sources of validation.
• Less securely attached individuals tend to have interpersonal coordination problems when they attempt to increase closeness and cooperation.

People with an anxious attachment:

• They make positive and negative judgements about others relatively quickly without needing much behavioural evidence.
• They are more vigilant to attachment-related information and block it out.
• They have more dynamic cognitive biases.
• They have more negative attribution (i.e. taking responsibility for a negative interaction and attributing it to a stable lack of ability, skill or personal value).
• They have more difficulties with concentrating.
• They have more fruitless deliberation.
• They have more difficulties with prioritizing goals.
• They have more difficulties with making decisions.

People with an avoidant attachment:

• They are more vigilant to attachment-related information and block it out.
• They require more evidence to confirm a positive judgement and to disconfirm a negative judgement.
• They have more stable cognitive biases.

People with anxious attachment tend to ruminate on negative possibilities. Rejection-related primes interfere with retrieving positive self-representations. The tendency of insecurely attached individuals to offer pessimistic explanations for other people’s behaviour is moderated by context.

Adult attachment is associated with the father’s sensitivity during the first three years of life and supportive experiences with either parent during later childhood. A parent’s attachment style can influence infant attachment. This provides evidence for intergenerational transmission of attachment pattern. This is mediated by the quality of parent-children interactions.

The transmission gap refers to a large part of the association between the parent’s and the child’s attachment status occurring through other processes than the quality of parental-child interactions. Children with more difficult temperaments as infants were more susceptible to the detrimental effects of poor maternal care.