Internal Working Models of Attachment

An internal working model is the mental blueprint a person builds from early bonds with caregivers. Attachment theory holds that this blueprint carries expectations about relationships into every later friendship and romantic bond, largely outside conscious awareness.

Background on Attachment Theory

John Bowlby originally conceived of attachment theory to explain the intense distress experienced by infants when separated from their caregivers.

He proposed that humans have an innate attachment behavioral system. It motivates them to seek proximity, contact, and comfort from significant others (attachment figures) under conditions of threat or distress (Bowlby, 1969/1982).

Origins

This attachment system evolved to promote survival. It keeps vulnerable infants close to caregivers who protect, support, and care for them.

Individual differences in attachment security emerge from the caregiver’s sensitivity and responsiveness. One recent meta-analysis put this to the test.

Aim: Zeegers et al. (2017) tested how strongly parental sensitivity and parental mentalization, a caregiver’s skill at reading an infant’s mental states, each predict attachment security.

Method: Their meta-analysis pooled 82 effect sizes from 6,664 infants on sensitivity and 20 effect sizes from 974 infants on mentalization, then modeled both predictors together.

Results: Sensitivity predicted security (r = .25) and mentalization predicted it slightly more strongly (r = .30), yet together they explained only 12% of the variance.

Conclusion: Ainsworth’s sensitivity hypothesis holds up. But sensitivity explains only part of the story (Zeegers, Colonnesi, Stams, & Meins, 2017).

John Bowlby (1969/1982) called these early mental representations internal working models, or IWMs. Each model is a cognitive-affective schema.

It holds beliefs about the self as worthy or unworthy of care, and about others as reliable or unreliable. In short, a caregiver’s responses teach an infant what to expect from the world, from other people, and from themselves.

For example, Bowlby (1969) argued the model tracks two things: how worthy of love a person feels, and how far they can trust others.

Bowlby called this an internal working model, or IWM. It begins as a representation of the infant’s first attachment relationship and becomes the template for that person’s attachment style.

Secure attachment develops when caregivers are consistently available and responsive. Insecure attachment develops when caregivers are insensitive, inconsistent, or rejecting.

Infants with secure attachments use their caregiver as a secure base for exploring and a safe haven for comfort when distressed. Insecure infants stay anxious about their caregiver’s availability and cannot rely on them for support (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978).

Structure of Working Models

Internal working model components are organized hierarchically, with general representations at the top and relationship-specific ones lower down (Overall, Fletcher, & Friesen, 2003). Although interconnected, each model is somewhat distinct and applies to a particular relationship.

A person can hold several models at once. For example, someone may carry a negative working model from childhood alongside a more positive model of their current romantic partner.

Models are also multifaceted, containing semantic and episodic elements at different levels of abstraction (Beer & Kihlstrom, 1999).

Stability of Working Models

Working models are considered relatively stable. They operate outside conscious awareness, guiding perceptions, emotions, and behavior in attachment-relevant situations (Bretherton & Munholland, 1999).

Continuity Across the Lifespan

An individual’s internal working model carries childhood attachment patterns forward into adolescence and adulthood. According to Bowlby (1969), later relationships tend to continue a person’s early attachment style, whether secure or insecure.

The infant’s first attachment figure sets the internal working model. That model then shapes what the infant expects from every relationship that follows.

This is the basis of what Bowlby (1973) called the continuity hypothesis. Because the primary attachment acts as a prototype, its quality shapes whether a person learns to trust others and to see themselves as worthy of care.

Bowlby (1969) made the same point in his own words.

The inner organisation of attachment, with its working model of attachment figure, becomes ever more stable… not only does it resist change but it does so increasingly.

Can Working Models Change?

Working models are stable, but not fixed. They stay open to modification and revision. This change can occur through new experiences with attachment figures, or by reworking past experiences.

One route to change has a name: canalization. The canalization hypothesis, proposed by Bowlby, holds that a working model becomes more stable and resistant to change as a relationship progresses. That model is a person’s beliefs about how available and responsive their attachment figures are.

Canalization is thought to build more enduring patterns of security or insecurity over time. That is the theory, at least.

Consequently, people in well-established relationships tend to show fewer swings in attachment security (Hadden et al., 2014). Recent evidence complicates this picture.

Dugan et al. (2024) tracked within-person fluctuation in adult attachment security over time and found it partly canalized, not fixed outright.

Bowlby (1988) later made a similar point.

Attachment behaviour and IWMs cannot be regarded as fixed in infancy and unchanging throughout life.

Early attachment leaves a lasting mark, but it does not lock in a person’s relational fate.

Components of Working Models

Cognitions about the self and others form part of a person’s internal working model of attachment. This model also includes security-based strategies that a person can use to explicitly regulate stress (Bowlby, 1973; Bretherton & Munholland, 1999).

Attachment researchers describe working models as complex mental networks consisting of various interrelated components, including (Collins & Read, 1994):

1. Memories of attachment experiences.
2. Beliefs and expectations about self and others.
3. Attachment-related goals and needs.
4. Relationship behavioral strategies.

1. Memory

The IWM gives people a schema for understanding social interactions. It helps them predict how others will behave, and how they themselves are likely to respond.

These templates draw on memories of how caregivers responded to a person’s past needs for comfort and security. They shape expectations for future responses.

Working models function as semantic networks that organize how memories are encoded and retrieved (Dykas & Cassidy, 2011). Memories that fit the model are recalled more easily than memories that do not.

This works both ways. People also project this model onto new relationships (Mikulincer & Horesh, 1999). Fading memories even get reshaped to match what the model expects (Miller & Noirot, 1999).

Anxious adults, for example, readily recall being rejected and may see partners as more distant than they are.

Avoidant adults suppress attachment memories altogether. Secure adults integrate the good and the bad without much bias.

2. Beliefs (Expectations)

Based on past experiences, people form beliefs about their own worthiness of love and support. They also form expectations about whether others can be depended on for care in times of need (Baldwin, Fehr, Keedian, & Seidel, 1993; Bowlby, 1973). These beliefs run deep.

The IWM acts as a lens that filters incoming social information, influencing attention, memory, and interpretation. For instance, a person with a negative IWM might readily recall instances of rejection and overlook positive social cues.

Anxious individuals vigilantly monitor cues relevant to rejection or abandonment. Anxious adults attribute ambiguous behaviors to rejection or lack of care. Avoidant adults assume others are unreliable.

Avoidant individuals direct attention away from attachment-related threats and needs. Secure individuals attend fairly and flexibly based on contextual cues rather than chronic concerns (Fraley, Davis, & Shaver, 1998).

Secure adults make relatively balanced attributions accounting for contextual factors. Biased construal reinforces working model assumptions and associated emotions/behaviors.

Because working models contain relationship beliefs and expectations, they also shape the attributions individuals make to explain partner behaviors (Collins, 1996).

The IWM not only shapes perceptions about others but also about oneself. It informs beliefs such as one’s worthiness of love, competence in relationships, and overall self-concept.

3. Attachment-Related Goals

Goals reflect the desire to form close relationships with others and have attachment needs met.

Each attachment style involves a characteristic hierarchy of interpersonal goals (Mikulincer, 1998). Anxious individuals pursue goals of gaining love, approval, and emotional reassurance.

Avoidant individuals pursue self-reliance, control, and emotional distance.

Secure individuals balance intimacy goals against autonomy needs. Activated goals shape cognitive processing and guide behavioral strategies.

4. Behavioral Strategies

These security-based strategies (Bowlby, 1973) also shape behavior directly.

Mediated by cognitive biases and emotional responses, working models orchestrate characteristic interpersonal behaviors (Dykas & Cassidy, 2011).

The patterns internalized in the IWM shape how a person behaves in relationships. An avoidantly attached person, for example, might withdraw during conflict, believing that relying on others is unsafe.

Anxious adults cling and seek reassurance. Avoidant adults distance themselves to stay independent.

Secure adults use flexible, relationship-enhancing behavior to meet attachment needs while respecting autonomy. Behavior then feeds back to reinforce those patterns.

The IWM also shapes how people manage and express emotion in relationships. An anxious person, for instance, may become distressed at the thought of separation, fearing abandonment.

Adult Attachment Styles

According to Bowlby’s theory (1988), forming a primary attachment also creates a mental representation of what a relationship is: an internal working model. We then carry this model into every later relationship.

The different attachment styles may be viewed as internal working models of “relationships” that evolved out of event experiences (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985).

Researchers have identified individual differences in adult attachment styles that reflect the security of internal working models. The measurement itself is straightforward.

Self-report measures and interview techniques assess orientations toward intimacy, dependency, and close relationships, corresponding to secure versus insecure working models (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000).

Secure vs. Insecure Attachment Styles

Adults with secure attachments feel comfortable with intimacy and can depend on others without worrying about abandonment. Their positive working models let them regulate attachment needs effectively and use relationships as a source of support.

Insecure styles work differently. They reflect more negative working models and greater difficulty meeting attachment needs.

Adults with anxious attachment fear rejection, need excessive reassurance, and doubt their own worthiness of love. Avoidant adults distrust their partners, strive for independence, and suppress their attachment needs (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.94

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226

Beer, J. S., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1999). Representations of self in close relationships: A test of continuity in internal working models in child and adult attachment. Unpublished manuscript.

Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. Tavistock/Routledge.

Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment relationships: A construct revisited. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 89-111). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Cloitre, M., Stovall-McClough, K. C., Miranda, R., & Chemtob, C. M. (2004). Therapeutic alliance, negative mood regulation, and treatment outcome in child abuse-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(3), 411–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.411

Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 810–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.810

Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive representations of attachment: The structure and function of working models. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships, Vol. 5. Attachment processes in adulthood (p. 53–90). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Dugan, K. A., Fraley, R. C., Gillath, O., & Deboeck, P. R. (2024). Testing the canalization hypothesis of attachment theory: Examining within-subject variation in attachment security. Journal of personality and social psychology, 126(3), 511.

Dykas, M. J., & Cassidy, J. (2011). Attachment and the processing of social information across the life span: theory and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 19–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021367

Fraley, R. C., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2004). A Dynamical Systems Approach to Conceptualizing and Studying Stability and Change in Attachment Security. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (p. 86–132). The Guilford Press.

Fraley, R. C., Gillath, O., & Deboeck, P. R. (2021). Do life events lead to enduring changes in adult attachment styles? A naturalistic longitudinal investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(6), 1567–1606.

Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350

Fraley, R. C., Davis, K. E., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Dismissing-avoidance and the defensive organization of emotion, cognition, and behavior. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (p. 249–279). The Guilford Press.

Hadden, B. W., Smith, C. V., & Webster, G. D. (2014). Relationship duration moderates associations between attachment and relationship quality: Meta-analytic support for the temporal adult romantic attachment model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(1), 42–58.

Karantzas, G. C., Younan, R., & Pilkington, P. D. (2023). The associations between early maladaptive schemas and adult attachment styles: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 30(1), 1–20.

Levy, K. N., Johnson, B. N., Clouthier, T. L., Scala, J. W., & Temes, C. M. (2015). An attachment theoretical framework for personality disorders. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 56(2), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000025

Mikulincer, M. (1997). Adult attachment style and information processing: Individual differences in curiosity and cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1217–1230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1217

Mikulincer, M., & Horesh, N. (1999). Adult attachment style and the perception of others: The role of projective mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 1022–1034. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.1022

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Miller, J. B., & Noirot, M. (1999). Attachment memories, models, and information processing. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(2), 147–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407599162002

Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Friesen, M. D. (2003). Mapping the intimate relationship mind: Comparisons between three models of attachment representations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(12), 1479–1493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203251519

Zeegers, M. A. J., Colonnesi, C., Stams, G.-J. J. M., & Meins, E. (2017). Mind matters: A meta-analysis on parental mentalization and sensitivity as predictors of infant–parent attachment. Psychological Bulletin, 143(12), 1245–1272. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000114