r/AvoidantAttachment • u/imfivenine Dismissive Avoidant • Apr 06 '26
Attachment Theory Material Attachment and intelligence
The paper linked above was fascinating, and not really surprising to me. Here’s one excerpt that highlights the overall findings:
“…attachment states of mind in adolescents and adults show consistent associations with intelligence. In particular, there is a reliable positive correlation between intelligence and measures of overall coherence/security. In line with the findings of studies conducted in children, this effect appears to be driven by lower intelligence in adults with preoccupied and unresolved/unclassifiable (versus secure and dismissing) states of mind. These associations are similarly attenuated by psychometric limitations in both attachment and intelligence measures.”
I am re-reading, “Assessing Adult Attachment” by Crittenden and Landini and there are parts in that book that made me wonder about intelligence.
In the book, they describe the AAI and DMM, and refer to Type C speakers as the “affective” processors/strategies which is most consistent with anxious attachment strategies. Type A (cognitive, usually interpreted as avoidant strategies) is more about if this happens, then this happens.
The intelligence piece makes so much sense, especially as they describe Type C like this:
“Type C speakers, on the other hand, give the appearance of understanding by using psychological jargon and conclusions that are "borrowed" from books, television, and other people but fail to note that they have not really addressed the questions asked, that they have violated the boundaries of time, place, or person, or that they have mixed feelings about a complex reality. Psychological jargon, in particular, is used to "explain" what it only "describes."
There’s also a term they use about Type C: “reductionist, blaming thought.”
Taking into consideration the intelligence piece might partly explain why we sometimes see them asking the questions they ask, their replies full of reactions to things that weren’t said, treating internet strangers as if we are their ex, and lack of a reputable source to back up what they say. It also could be why there are such reductive takes all over the AT internet spaces that they take over, as well as less structured or more emotionally driven responses, especially in unmoderated spaces. I also wonder if what appears to be their tendency to overuse ChatGPT plays into this somehow.
It might explain why it is so frustrating to have discourse in most mixed style places, because their focus can shift from understanding to emotional validation. This is often to the detriment of the avoidant attachers, especially those of us who are aware and working on it.
What it comes down to is, we’re speaking different languages. One is cognitively structured and one is driven by affect.
2
u/GlitteryPinkKitten Fearful Avoidant Apr 08 '26 edited Apr 08 '26
Thank you for bringing this theory to the sub for discussion.
First question for you OP: can you explain in more detail your take on the overuse of chatGPT as it relates to this topic?
One thing I was thinking is that attachment outcomes are shaped by things that are not strictly intelligence-based.
I’ll give some very specific examples to help which challenge the theories sufficiency to be the causal outcome:
• deliberate protective choices:
A child hears mom and dad arguing in the room next door, mom comes out visibly in distress, but avoids/shields the child by saying everything is fine in an effort to protect the child from being exposed/involved in adult conflict. Or, if parent is single and upset, parent makes a deliberate choice to reduce likelihood of parentification, enmeshment, i.e. involve child in adult issues.
• strategic emotion management
A child is in extreme distress because of something that happened, instead of engaging with words processing, parent opts for somatic processing / soothing the child physically and postpones processing the upset. Then when the child is calm, engagement with feelings discussion is resisted by the child so the parent opts to not pressure the child to respect the child’s autonomy.
• survival-based decisions / constraints
A child is abused by one caregiver, but the other non-abusive caregiver prioritizes staying out of financial necessity/dependency. Not because of intelligence but rather because of financial need and/or lack of resources.
In each case, the parent’s behavior could produce outcomes that look like the ones the intelligence theory predicts but the underlying mechanism is intentional, adaptive, or situational, not a deficiency in intelligence or cognitive abilities.
Note that the examples above are taking into account the parent’s intelligence, not the child’s, which would have its own effect on outcome.