Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance Explained

The two scores in the Attachment Style Test answer different questions. Attachment anxiety concerns worries about a partner’s care and availability. Attachment avoidance concerns discomfort with emotional closeness and reliance. Reading them separately is more useful than trying to turn them into a single measure of relationship health.

This guide explains what each dimension can describe, what it cannot establish and how to connect a score with real examples from your life.

Attachment anxiety: questions about availability

Attachment anxiety concerns the possibility that a partner may not be available, responsive or as invested as you would like. A higher score means your answers expressed more of the concerns represented by the original statements. It does not establish an anxiety disorder, explain the cause of a concern or show that the concern is unreasonable.

For reflection, think about an ordinary moment of uncertainty: a change of plans, a delayed response or a conversation that ends without clarity. What did you know, what did you assume and what did you need? These are editorial reflection questions, not extra scored items.

Two people might both want reassurance but for different reasons. One could be reacting to repeated broken agreements; another could feel uncertain despite generally dependable communication. The same wish does not identify the same circumstances. A questionnaire cannot settle that distinction for you.

Attachment avoidance: questions about closeness

Attachment avoidance concerns difficulty with emotional closeness, disclosure or relying on a partner. A higher score means more endorsement of the avoidance-related content after reverse scoring. It does not mean being uncaring or incapable of a relationship.

It is also not interchangeable with introversion. Someone who prefers a small social circle can still feel comfortable being emotionally open with a partner. Someone who enjoys a busy social life can still find intimate reliance uncomfortable. Social energy and romantic attachment are different questions.

Think about a time you wanted support. Could you ask for it in a way that felt comfortable? If you chose not to, was that because the situation did not call for it, because your boundaries mattered or because dependence itself felt difficult? The score cannot choose among those explanations.

How the dimensions work together

The dimensions are separate, not opposite ends of one line. Lower anxiety does not automatically mean higher avoidance, and comfort with closeness does not rule out worries about a partner’s availability.

The map places anxiety vertically and avoidance horizontally. The familiar secure, anxious, dismissive and fearful patterns describe combinations of the two dimensions. They provide orientation; the test does not assign you to one of them.

For example, one illustrative profile could show less anxiety and more avoidance. Another could show more of both. Those combinations invite different questions about experience, but neither establishes relationship safety, compatibility or a diagnosis. See Attachment Styles Explained for the broader framework.

What the numbers mean

Each dimension uses 18 original statements on a seven-position response scale. Specified answers are reversed before averaging, so all contributions point in the same scoring direction. The resulting average remains on a 1–7 range.

An average of 4 is not the 50th percentile. A score of 5 is not “five out of seven accuracy” or a severity grade. These numbers describe your keyed responses, not where you stand in a representative population.

Every required answer must be present before its dimension is scored. A deliberate skip stays distinct from a statement you have not touched, but neither is replaced with an estimated response. You can view a completed dimension while the other remains explicitly unscored.

Put a result beside actual examples

Start with one answer that feels representative. Describe a situation in plain language, then note what felt different in a contrasting situation. For instance, being comfortable discussing a practical problem but uncomfortable asking for emotional support may be more informative than a broad statement about being “avoidant”.

The test asks about romantic relationships generally. You should not change that original instruction to answer solely about a current partner. However, when reflecting afterwards, it can be useful to consider whether your examples vary between relationships and circumstances. Research instruments specifically designed to compare relationships are different questionnaires; this one does not calculate relationship-by-relationship scores.

Small differences between attempts should not automatically be called improvement or deterioration. The interface has no reliable-change calculation. Its descriptive thresholds are editorial rules, not validated boundaries between psychological states.

A useful next step

Choose a reflection that fits rather than adopting every interpretation. You could identify a communication expectation to clarify, a form of support you value or a boundary you want to explain. These are possibilities for reflection, not prescribed treatment or proof that change is needed.

If a result does not match your experience, review the actual answers and reverse-scoring explanations before assuming the score has special authority. Keep the parts that illuminate something and leave the rest open to question.

Read How to Understand Your Attachment Test Results for completion, editing and printing guidance. The separate Relationship Patterns Test offers ten differently constructed scores; it cannot confirm these two dimensions or be combined with them.

Sources and limitations

See the original questionnaire’s author guidance, adult attachment overview and the author’s relationship-specific measurement guidance. The last source concerns a different instrument and is linked for context, not as the scoring basis for this test. This guide and its examples are editorial adaptations, not independently evaluated feedback or clinical advice.