Match Made In Heaven: Is Attachment Theory the New Astrology for Choosing Romantic Partners?

When it comes to rules of choosing the perfect romantic partner, is the attachment theory the new astrology?

Internationale Hygiene-Ausstellung. From Public Domain Review.

In astrology, the rules are clear: the most compatible romantic partners are those whose zodiac signs belong to the same element—Fire, Earth, Air, or Water. Unfortunately, this divinatory art, which posits that affairs of the heart can be discerned through the relationship of celestial objects, has been recognized as pseudoscience and is therefore unlikely to yield real-life benefits through its simple matchmaking rules.

Other approaches have examined this conundrum from the perspective of neurochemistry, questioning whether something in our biochemical makeup makes us especially attracted or suitable to another person. The broad idea is that beyond what we consciously think we are attracted to, there might be a biochemical matching happening out of our awareness, guiding our choice of partners.

Finding a magic equation for why we effortlessly match with some people while drama and upheavals are guaranteed with others is something that captivates lots of mental curiosity.

It is not uncommon to encounter such questions in a therapy setting—some clients turn to their therapist in search of an expert guide through the messy dating landscape, seeking some semblance of rules and clarity.

As therapists, is there anything we can confidently say to our clients about this? In other words, are there any evidence-based rules for matchmaking?

Lately, I have been interested in what attachment theory and research have to say on this matter.

For example, the book Attached popularised the idea of the 'anxious-avoidant trap.' According to this idea, people with an anxious attachment style are paradoxically attracted to those with an avoidant attachment style, who are most likely to enact their worst nightmare: rejection.

While I have certainly witnessed this misguided strategy playing out like a self-fulfilling prophecy in therapy, I was curious to find out what the research says about it. More broadly, can attachment theory provide science-based advice on optimal partner choice?

Let’s look at the evidence from a systematic review of 16 articles, looking to uncover the secret hack for making and maintaining successful couples from an attachment theory perspective.

Before we dig in, it’s important to mention one caveat: different studies used varying adult attachment categorizations. While some studies categorized attachment styles as Secure, Anxious, and Avoidant, others included the Fearful-Avoidant attachment style.

In theory, there are three possible combinations that yield three hypotheses for how we choose our partners:

1. Similarity Hypothesis According to this hypothesis, a person will be romantically attracted to another person with a similar attachment style. In this view, “like attracts like”.

2. Complementary Hypothesis This hypothesis suggests that people are drawn to partners whose attachment styles complement their own. For example, the "anxious-avoidant trap" falls into this category, where anxious and avoidant individuals are drawn to each other. Additionally, secure attachment can be self-complementary. In this view, “opposites attract”.

3. Attachment Security Hypothesis According to this hypothesis, regardless of an individual’s attachment style, they will be drawn to partners who exhibit secure attachment. Here, secure attachment acts as a magnet for others.

The idea behind the "like attracts like" hypothesis is that being with a partner who shares similar attachment expectations will provide a level of intimacy and independence that aligns with each person’s attachment style. For avoidant individuals, this means having ample space and independence. For anxious individuals, it means seeking emotional proximity, intensity, and feedback from their partner. For secure individuals, it involves a balance of intimacy and independence, aligning somewhere in the middle.

The "opposites attract" hypothesis, on the other hand, is based on the idea of self-consistency, which suggests that individuals seek relationships that confirm their existing beliefs about themselves and others. In attachment theory terms, this means that a person’s Internal Working Model is reinforced through their experiences in close relationships. For instance, a person with an anxious attachment style may be drawn to an avoidant partner because the avoidant partner’s behavior confirms their deep-seated belief that they are unlovable and destined for rejection. Conversely, an avoidant person in this anxious-avoidant dynamic will have their views on intimacy validated, seeing others as clingy, needy, and emotionally demanding.

So, which one is it? Is it similarity that rules, the opposites who attract or is it just that secure attachment is the magnet for everyone else.

Below is a table showing the results from different studies, highlighting the wide variability in the findings.

From: Holmes, B. M., & Johnson, K. R. (2009). Adult attachment and romantic partner preference: A review. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. In purple highlighted the results when it comes to dominant way of choosing partners.

This result is bewildering. Of course, the authors attempt to find rational explanations for such disparate outcomes, but my take on it is that, essentially, nobody seems to have a clue, and the jury is still out.

And so, as the search to decipher the rules of Cupid's whereabouts continues, it looks like the only thing we can really rely on is our gut feeling, past experiences and the occasional broken heart, to guide us toward finding the right romantic partner.

In your experience, do the similars attract, repulse or is it just a madness without a method?

As always, thank you for reading and for updates and more of the similar follow me on BlueSky or Twitter or subscribe to my mailing list.