Do People with Avoidant Attachment Come Back?

It’s 11:48 p.m. on a Tuesday, three weeks after he stopped replying, and your phone buzzes. A meme. No hello, no apology, no explanation for the silence. Just a dog in a tiny hat and the faintly casual energy of someone who has never left. Your heart does something embarrassing. You stare at the screen like it’s a wild animal that might bolt if you move too fast. Part of you wants to throw the phone across the room; part of you is already composing a reply, and part of you is checking whether you look a bit too eager. Sound familiar?

If you’ve been close to someone with an avoidant attachment style, you probably know this loop: warmth, withdrawal, silence, and then a return that arrives without warning and without much of an account. The returning itself isn’t the confusing part. The confusing part is what it means. Did they miss you? Did they change? Are they back because they care, or because they’re lonely, curious or bored? And will they leave again the moment things get close? Anyone who has lived this has a theory, and most theories are wrong in one direction or the other: either “he never cared” or “he’s secretly pining.”

Short answer: often, yes, they do. But coming back isn’t the same as changing.

This guide explains whether people with avoidant attachment come back, why they leave and return, what the research can and can’t tell us, and how to decide what to do when the phone lights up.

Do people with avoidant attachment actually come back?

Many do, though not all, and not always in the way you hope. Avoidantly attached people often pull away under closeness, feel relief for a while, and then reach out again once the pressure eases and loneliness or curiosity rises. A return says something about their feelings, but very little about whether they’ve become ready for the kind of relationship you want.

I should be honest about the evidence up front. There’s no large study that tracks avoidant exes and counts how many return, how soon, and what happens next. What we have is solid research on how avoidant attachment works, how avoidant people react to separation and breakups, and how on-again, off-again relationships behave, plus a lot of clinical observation. Anyone who gives you a precise percentage or a confident timeline (“they’ll be back in six to eight weeks”) is guessing.

What the research does suggest is a pattern. Avoidant people tend to manage closeness by deactivating their attachment feelings: they minimize need, distract themselves, and focus on independence. That strategy works best when nothing threatens it. Immediately after a breakup, it can feel like freedom. Over time, though, unmet needs for connection don’t vanish; they’re simply pushed out of awareness, and they can resurface when circumstances change: a quiet weekend, a milestone, a new relationship that doesn’t satisfy, seeing the ex online.

Take Jules, an illustrative composite. After eight months with Priya, Jules says he “needs space,” stops texting, and posts photos from a ski trip. Priya spends a month in a daze. Then, at 2 a.m. on a night when his friends are all busy, he messages: “Hey, saw this and thought of you.” Did he miss her? Probably, in some way. Does it mean he’s ready to talk about why he left? That’s a separate question.

Some avoidant people never return. They move on cleanly, or the break-up is final because there was harm, or because they don’t want what you want. Others return repeatedly, creating a cycle of closeness and distance that wears out both partners. And some return changed, usually after real self-reflection, often with support from therapy.

So the useful question isn’t just “will they come back?” It’s “what would need to be different for coming back to be good for me?” The rest of this article helps you answer that.

What is avoidant attachment, and where does it come from?

Avoidant attachment is an attachment style marked by discomfort with emotional closeness and dependence, a strong preference for self-reliance, and a habit of downplaying attachment needs. It develops from early experiences and shapes how adults handle intimacy, though it’s a tendency, not a fixed trait or a diagnosis.

The psychiatrist John Bowlby laid the foundations of attachment theory in the 1960s, arguing that humans are born with a biological system that drives them to seek closeness to caregivers when threatened. When caregivers respond reliably, children develop security. When they’re consistently dismissive, rejecting or uncomfortable with emotion, children learn to turn the attachment system down. Bowlby’s later collaborator, the developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth, tested this with the Strange Situation, a laboratory procedure in which infants are briefly separated from their caregiver and then reunited. She observed three main patterns: secure infants, ambivalent infants, and avoidant infants, who showed little visible distress at separation and turned away or ignored the caregiver on return. In early US samples, roughly one in five infants fell into the avoidant group. Later physiological work suggested that avoidant infants were often more aroused than they appeared, which fits the idea that they suppress outward signs, not inner feelings.

In 1987, Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver extended the framework to adult romance. In a “love quiz” published in a newspaper, respondents chose the description that best fit them: about 56 percent chose secure, about 25 percent avoidant and about 19 percent anxious. Their key claim, that romantic love works as an attachment process similar to infant-caregiver bonds, has been tested and refined for decades. Modern researchers usually prefer to measure attachment on two dimensions: attachment avoidance (discomfort with closeness) and attachment anxiety (fear of abandonment), instead of sorting people into boxes.

Where does avoidance come from? Most researchers point to caregiving that was emotionally distant, intrusive or unresponsive, or that discouraged crying and dependence. A child learns that expressing need doesn’t work, so they stop expressing it. Culture, temperament and later experiences such as betrayal or loss can also play a part. Genetics likely contribute modestly.

It matters to say what avoidance is not. It isn’t a lack of feeling. Avoidant people love, miss and grieve. It isn’t coldness by choice, and it isn’t an excuse for hurtful behavior. And it isn’t permanent. The same system that learned to deactivate can learn something different with new experiences.

One more caution: “avoidant” is widely used in social media and dating advice as a catch-all insult. In research it’s a specific, measured tendency, and most people sit somewhere on a continuum.

Is there more than one kind of avoidant attachment?

Yes. Researchers distinguish at least two: dismissing-avoidant people, who suppress attachment needs and value independence, and fearful-avoidant (also called disorganized) people, who want closeness but fear it. They behave differently when relationships end.

The psychologists Kim Bartholomew and Leonard Horowitz proposed a four-category model of adult attachment in 1991, built on two beliefs: whether you see yourself as worthy of love, and whether you see others as trustworthy and available. Combining positive or negative views of self and other gives four styles: secure (positive self, positive other), preoccupied (negative self, positive other), dismissing-avoidant (positive self, negative other) and fearful-avoidant (negative self, negative other).

The dismissing type protects itself by minimizing the importance of relationships. “I don’t need anyone” is the unspoken motto, and their self-image stays intact by keeping others at a distance. After a breakup, they often look fine, throw themselves into work, hobbies or new people, and may be slow to show any sign of missing you.

The fearful type is more conflicted. They want love but expect hurt, so they approach and withdraw in quick succession. They tend to report more emotional turmoil than dismissing people, and their relationships can feel like a push-pull. When they return, the return is often accompanied by obvious ambivalence: warmth one week, retreat the next.

Why does this matter for “will they come back”? Because the return looks different. A dismissing person may reappear quietly after weeks or months, often with minimal reflection and an expectation that things resume where they left off. A fearful-avoidant person may come back faster and more emotionally, then bolt again when closeness spikes. Neither is a promise.

The psychologist Mario Mikulincer and Phillip Shaver describe the strategies behind this in their 2007 book Attachment in Adulthood. People with avoidance rely on deactivating strategies: they suppress attachment-related thoughts, avoid emotional topics, deny vulnerability and keep distance when stressed. Anxious people use hyperactivating strategies: they escalate, seek reassurance and monitor the partner. When an anxious and avoidant person pair up, the strategies can set each other off, with pursuit triggering retreat and retreat triggering pursuit.

Note too that avoidance depends on context. A person who’s avoidant in one relationship may be more secure in another, especially with a patient, responsive partner. Attachment is a tendency expressed in relationships, not a sealed label.

If you’re trying to work out which type you’re dealing with, resist diagnosing from a distance. Look at behavior across time, and treat labels as hypotheses.

What happens inside an avoidant person after a breakup?

Often, a period of apparent calm followed by delayed feeling. Avoidant people tend to report less distress at separations and to suppress thoughts about loss, which can look like not caring, but research shows the suppression works only some of the time and under certain conditions.

The psychologist R. Chris Fraley and Phillip Shaver studied this in a clever naturalistic study in 1998: they approached couples in a busy airport, some separating and some not, measured their attachment style and distress, and then unobtrusively observed their behavior. Separating couples showed more attachment behavior in general (clinging, crying, caregiving), but highly avoidant people showed much less. They sought less contact, gave less support and showed more distancing. Self-reports suggested that they felt less distress too. That fits the common experience of watching an avoidant partner shrug at a goodbye that leaves you reeling.

Is that calm real? A second Fraley and Shaver study, in 1997, tried to find out. They asked adults to think about a partner leaving them and then to suppress those thoughts. Dismissing-avoidant adults were able to push the thoughts out of mind, and their physiological arousal dropped as well, which suggested that they weren’t merely hiding distress. The researchers concluded that avoidant people can genuinely suppress activation of the attachment system, at least under favorable conditions.

But suppression has limits. In a 2004 follow-up, Mario Mikulincer and colleagues found that when avoidant people were distracted by a demanding mental task, the suppressed thoughts rebounded and became more accessible, along with negative views of themselves. In other words, the shutdown holds when life is easy and cracks when the mind is overloaded: stress, exhaustion, loneliness, a bad week at work, a quiet night alone. That’s a plausible mechanism for the late-night return. Deactivation fades under load, and what was pushed away comes back into awareness.

Imagine Theo, an illustrative composite, who ends a relationship and feels lighter for a month. He’s busy, training for a race, seeing friends. Then his sister gets married, a project at work collapses, and he finds himself scrolling through old photos at 1 a.m., surprised by how much he misses someone he told himself he’d outgrown. That’s not insincerity. That’s the suppression slipping.

A few cautions. These studies used samples of mostly young adults and mostly self-reported or lab-based measures, and the results describe averages. Individual avoidant people vary a lot, and many don’t experience a delayed wave at all. Also, being able to suppress distress isn’t the same as being unaffected; it may come at a cost to emotional processing and to relationships.

So when an avoidant ex goes silent, “they don’t care” and “they’re hurting secretly” are both too simple. The truth is usually messier, and you can’t tell from the outside which is operating.

Why do avoidant people come back?

For several overlapping reasons, and most of them are less about you than you’d think. Missing you is one; so are loneliness, habit, curiosity, guilt, boredom, a failed new relationship and the return of feelings that deactivation had pushed down.

• Loneliness and load: when stress or empty time overwhelms the suppression described earlier, the need for connection comes back into awareness, and the ex is the familiar source.
• Distance feels safe: once you’re no longer pressing for closeness, the threat is gone, and warmth feels possible again. Many avoidant people are drawn to a partner from a safe distance.
• Idealization of the past: memory trims away the friction. They recall the good evenings and forget the conflict that made them leave.
• Comparison: dating someone else who’s less compatible, or no one at all, can make you look better in hindsight.
• Guilt or unfinished business: some come back to apologize, explain or ease their own conscience, which may or may not involve a wish to reconcile.
• Ego and curiosity: checking whether you’re still available, still interested, still thinking of them. This can be a reassurance test, not a plan.

Notice what’s missing from the list: a decision to change. Most returns happen because feelings resurfaced, not because someone worked through why the relationship failed. That distinction explains why so many reunions repeat the old pattern within weeks or months.

Researchers who study on-again, off-again relationships help put this in perspective. A majority of people report having been in a relationship that broke up and renewed at least once, so returning isn’t unusual; it’s a common feature of modern dating. Whether it works out is another matter, as the next sections show.

Sometimes the return is a signal of genuine growth. People do reflect, sometimes in therapy, sometimes after an unsettling period alone, and discover that their avoidance cost them something they value. When that happens, the returning person usually does something different: they take responsibility without being asked, explain what they’ve learned, and talk about concrete changes. They don’t pretend the gap didn’t happen.

It also helps to separate being missed from being chosen. Being missed is a feeling; being chosen is a commitment, expressed in consistent behavior over time. An avoidant person can honestly miss you and still not be able to choose the kind of relationship you want yet.

Ask yourself: what would I need to see in the next three months to believe that this time is different?

How can you tell real change from a temporary return?

Look at behavior over time, not at the emotional intensity of the first message. A real change shows up as consistency, accountability and willingness to talk about the hard parts. A temporary return shows up as warmth without reflection, and it fades when closeness grows.

Take Priya, from our earlier illustration, when Jules returns. If he says, “I left because I felt cornered by how much I needed you, and I handled it badly. I’ve started seeing someone about it. I’d like to try again slowly, and I understand if you don’t want to,” that’s a very different return from, “Miss you. Wanna grab a drink?” Both are friendly. Only one acknowledges the pattern.

Time is a good test. A few good weeks prove little, since avoidant people are often at their warmest when the relationship feels voluntary. The real tests come when closeness deepens: when you ask for a commitment, share a vulnerable feeling, have a disagreement or need support. How they handle those moments shows whether anything has changed.

It also helps to watch your own responses. Do you feel calm and respected, or are you monitoring their mood and shrinking your needs? If you feel like you’re walking on eggshells to keep them from retreating, that’s information about the relationship’s current state.

Real change is rarely dramatic. It looks ordinary: a person who says “I’m feeling overwhelmed, I need a few hours, I’ll call you tonight,” and then calls. That small, consistent pattern of staying connected while taking space is worth more than any grand reunion speech.

Be wary of reunion speeches that rely on intensity, urgency or guilt. Change is quiet and checkable.

What happens when the cycle repeats?

On-again, off-again patterns tend to be less satisfying and more uncertain than relationships that don’t break up and renew, and they can wear down confidence and trust. They’re common, though, and some couples do eventually stabilize if the underlying patterns shift.

The communication researcher Rene Dailey and colleagues have studied these cyclical relationships for years. In a 2010 study comparing on-off couples with couples who had never broken up, they looked at relational maintenance, uncertainty and relationship quality and found that on-off partners generally reported more uncertainty and, in later syntheses, lower satisfaction, more conflict and greater structural ties such as children or shared finances, compared with noncyclical couples. A later study found something interesting: fluctuation in perceived partner commitment, which predicts instability in steady relationships, wasn’t necessarily seen as disruptive by on-off partners. They had adapted to the ups and downs, which may be part of why the pattern persists.

What does it look like in practice? A break-up, a stretch of silence, a reunion full of promises, a honeymoon, a slow slide into the old tension, a retreat. Each round tends to leave a bit more mistrust and a bit more confusion. The partner who is more anxious often starts to feel like they’re always waiting, and the avoidant partner may begin to feel guilty and cornered, which pushes them away again.

Consider Nadia, an illustrative composite, who has “broken up” with Sam four times in two years. Each reunion begins with relief and a conversation about how things will be different. By week six, Sam is working late, answering slowly and bristling when she asks how he feels. Nadia notices herself becoming the person who checks his online status, a person she doesn’t like. She isn’t weak. She’s responding to intermittent warmth, which is a powerful driver of persistence.

Several aspects of the cycle keep it going. Intermittent reinforcement makes the good moments feel precious. Sunk costs make leaving feel like wasting everything. Hope in the other’s potential, rather than their actual behavior, keeps people invested. And the structural entanglements, such as shared housing, friends and finances, make clean breaks hard.

It’s worth asking whether your reunions produce any actual change or simply reset the clock. If each round feels like the previous one, and your needs keep getting postponed, that’s a pattern worth confronting.

Not every repeat means doom. Some people use a break to gain clarity, and some returns lead to durable relationships. The difference lies in whether something concrete changes between rounds: new skills, new conversations, outside support, new boundaries.

If you recognize this loop, consider the possibility that the question isn’t whether they’ll come back again, but whether you want to keep playing the same round.

How should you respond if an avoidant ex reaches out?

Slowly, clearly and from your own needs. You don’t owe a fast answer, and you don’t have to choose between a warm welcome and a cold shoulder. A short pause, an honest check of what you want and a conversation about what’s different are usually better than reacting in the moment.

1. Pause before replying. Give yourself a few hours or a day. The urge to respond immediately is usually anxiety, not clarity. Notice what you feel: relief, anger, hope, dread.
2. Get clear on what you want. Closure? Friendship? A real second try? Nothing at all? If you don’t know, say less. You can answer simply: “Thanks for reaching out. Can I think about it?”
3. Ask for specifics. If you’re open to talking, ask what they want and what’s changed. “What are you hoping for?” and “What have you learned since we ended?” are fair questions. Vague answers are information.
4. Set terms. Name what you need to feel safe: consistent contact, honesty about what they want, no disappearing without notice, and maybe a slower pace. Boundaries are statements about your behavior (“I’ll step back if contact stops without explanation”), not threats.
5. Trial, don’t leap. Try a few low-stakes meetings. See how they handle closeness, disagreement and your needs over weeks, not days. Keep your own friends, routines and supports.

A few things to avoid. Don’t play games, such as pretending not to care, waiting strategically or “testing” them. Tactics like these may produce short-term results, but they undermine honest connection and keep you in a performance. Don’t chase with floods of messages; that tends to intensify avoidance, as the anxious-avoidant dance shows. Don’t ignore your gut when something feels off. And don’t interpret contact as a commitment; one text isn’t a plan.

It’s equally fine to decline. You can say, “I appreciate you reaching out, and I’ve decided not to reopen this,” and mean it. If the relationship harmed you, or if you’ve been through multiple cycles, closing the door may be the healthiest move. Sometimes the strongest response to a return is a calm “no.”

If you tend toward anxiety in relationships, consider support: a therapist who knows attachment can help you notice your own patterns, soothe your system and make choices from steadier ground. Friends who will tell you the truth, and not just what you want to hear, are worth their weight in gold.

And keep this in mind: the goal isn’t to “win” them back or to get them to prove anything. It’s to find out whether a relationship of mutual care is possible, and to be okay if it isn’t.

If you’re the avoidant one, how do you stop leaving and returning?

Start by recognizing the pattern as a learned strategy, not a verdict about who you are, and then practice small, deliberate steps toward closeness. Avoidant attachment can change, usually slowly, especially with a patient partner or a good therapist.

The reassuring news comes from the research on stability. A meta-analysis by R. Chris Fraley in 2002 found that attachment patterns are moderately stable from infancy into adulthood, but far from fixed, and that stability varies with life events and relationships. Attachment style is a tendency that new experiences can shift. People who spend time in secure relationships, who work with therapists and who reflect on their histories often become more secure over time, a process sometimes called earned security.

Practical steps:

Notice the early signs of pulling away: sudden irritation with a partner’s habits, a wish for “space” after a warm evening, scanning for flaws, imagining life alone. Name them to yourself (“I’m starting to feel crowded”). Tell your partner in plain language before you withdraw: “I’m feeling overwhelmed and I need a few hours alone. I’ll text you later.” Then actually do. Practice staying in uncomfortable conversations a little longer than feels natural. Share small feelings, not just big ones. Ask for help in small ways. Track how often you leave because of an actual problem and how often because closeness itself feels threatening.

It also helps to examine your beliefs. Many avoidant people carry silent rules such as “needing people is weak,” “people will smother me” or “if I get close, I’ll lose myself.” Therapy, particularly approaches that work with attachment and emotions, can help you test those rules against experience. Mindfulness practices can build tolerance for internal states you’ve learned to avoid.

If you’ve left and returned repeatedly, consider what you owe the other person. A return without honesty about your pattern puts the cost on them. A better path is to say plainly: “I tend to pull away when things get serious, I know it’s hurt you, and I’m working on it. If you want to try again, here’s what I’m doing differently.”

Don’t expect transformation overnight. Expect moments of discomfort, relapses and small wins. What matters is the direction of travel and whether your behavior over months matches your words.

And be gentle with yourself. The strategy that you’re trying to change once protected you. Thanking it, and then choosing differently, tends to work better than fighting it.

When is it time to stop waiting?

When waiting is costing you your wellbeing, your plans or your sense of self, or when the relationship involves mistreatment. Hope is fine; putting your life on hold for someone’s possible return isn’t. You can leave the door unlocked without sitting beside it.

Signs that it’s time to move your attention elsewhere: months have passed with no real change in behavior, they contact you only when it suits them, they dodge honest conversation, they keep you on the hook without commitment, or you notice your mood depends on their messages. Waiting has a way of expanding to fill the space, and many people look back and realize they gave a year to a maybe.

Practical suggestions for the waiting period, if you choose to be open: keep living. See friends, pursue interests, date if you wish, and keep your routines steady. Limit checking their social media, which keeps the wound open. Decide in advance what you will and won’t accept if they do come back. Give yourself a time frame for reassessing, such as three months, and honor it.

Grief is part of this. Even if they never return, you may be mourning the person and the future you imagined. Allow it. Talk to people who care about you. Write it out. If sadness or anxiety is heavy and persistent, with trouble sleeping, eating or functioning, speak to a primary care doctor (a GP in the UK, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand) or a licensed therapist.

If your distress becomes overwhelming, or you have thoughts of suicide or self-harm, reach out right away. In the US, call or text 988; in Canada, call or text 9-8-8; in the UK and Ireland, Samaritans is on 116 123, and in Ireland Pieta is on 1800 247 247; in Australia, Lifeline is 13 11 14; in New Zealand, call or text 1737. In an emergency, call 911 (US and Canada), 999 (UK), 112 or 999 (Ireland), 000 (Australia) or 111 (New Zealand).

And if the relationship involved control, intimidation, harassment or violence, a return should be treated with caution, and safety comes first. Contact a domestic violence service or the emergency number for your country. Avoidance in itself isn’t abuse, but abusive behavior isn’t an attachment style, and it shouldn’t be explained away as one.

Finally, consider this: the person who comes back after you’ve built a good life is often different from the person who’d return if you’d spent that time waiting. Living well isn’t a strategy to win them back. It’s a way of being okay either way.

FAQs about Avoidant Attachment and Coming Back

How long does it take for an avoidant person to come back?

There’s no reliable timeline. Some avoidant exes reappear within a few weeks, others after many months or even years, and some never do. Research doesn’t track returns, so any specific figure is a guess. What the attachment studies suggest is that avoidant people suppress feelings of loss when life is manageable, and those feelings can return when they’re stressed, lonely or distracted by something else. A return often follows a trigger, such as a holiday, a stressful period or a failed new relationship, more than a calendar date.

Do avoidant people miss their exes?

Often, yes, though they may not show it. Studies by Fraley and Shaver found that avoidant adults can suppress thoughts and physiological responses to separation, so they may appear untroubled. Follow-up work suggests that when they’re cognitively overloaded, suppressed thoughts rebound and become easier to access. So missing someone can happen quietly or later on. But missing you isn’t the same as being ready to commit, which is what matters for a relationship.

Why do avoidant people disappear and then reappear?

Closeness can feel threatening to people with avoidant attachment, so they create distance. After the pressure lifts, the need for connection resurfaces, along with loneliness, curiosity or idealized memories, and they reach out again. This pattern is more likely if the underlying fear of dependence hasn’t been addressed. Researchers who study on-again, off-again relationships find that these cycles are common but tend to bring more uncertainty and lower satisfaction on average.

Should I take back an avoidant ex?

It depends on what has changed and what you need. Look for accountability, consistent behavior over months, and a willingness to talk about the pattern and to take things slowly. If they return with warmth but no reflection, and the old dynamics reappear quickly, think carefully before reopening the door. Trial periods, clear boundaries and outside support help. It’s also perfectly valid to decline, particularly if you’ve been through several rounds or felt hurt or unsafe.

Can an avoidant person change?

Yes, though it takes time and motivation. Attachment is moderately stable, but R. Chris Fraley’s meta-analysis shows it’s not fixed, and people can become more secure through supportive relationships, therapy and self-reflection. Change usually looks like noticing the urge to withdraw, naming it, staying in difficult conversations and asking for needs to be met. It’s gradual and often includes setbacks. Wanting to change matters more than any label.

Is no contact the best way to get an avoidant ex back?

Not as a tactic. Stepping back can reduce pressure and give you room to heal, which are good reasons to do it, but using silence as a strategy to trigger their return is manipulative and unreliable, and it keeps your focus on them. If you use no contact, do it for yourself, with a clear sense of what you want from the break. If they return, judge the relationship by their behavior and your needs, not by whether the strategy “worked.”

What’s the difference between avoidant and fearful-avoidant attachment?

Dismissing-avoidant people, in the model by Kim Bartholomew and Leonard Horowitz, see themselves positively and others negatively, so they minimize the importance of relationships and prize independence. Fearful-avoidant people see themselves and others negatively: they want closeness but fear rejection, so they approach and withdraw in turns and often report more emotional turmoil. In breakups, dismissing people may look calm and distant, while fearful people may seem more conflicted and quick to reverse course.

How do I stop obsessing over whether they’ll return?

Shift your attention to what you can control. Limit checking their profiles, set a specific time to reassess your situation, and fill your days with people and activities that matter to you. Name the thought (“I’m doing the waiting loop again”) and redirect. Talk to a trusted friend or therapist about it, especially if you notice anxious attachment patterns in your relationships. If the preoccupation interferes with sleep, work or mood, seek professional support.

Bibliography

• Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.
• Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.
• Dailey, R. M., Hampel, A. D., & Roberts, J. (2010). Relational maintenance in on-again/off-again relationships: An assessment of how relational maintenance, uncertainty, and relational quality vary by relationship type and status. Communication Monographs, 77(1), 75-101.
• Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 123-151.
• Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment and the suppression of unwanted thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 1080-1091.
• Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Airport separations: A naturalistic study of adult attachment dynamics in separating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1198-1212.
• Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.
• Mikulincer, M., Dolev, T., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment-related strategies during thought suppression: Ironic rebounds and vulnerable self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 940-956.
• Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford Press.