Attachments are strong emotional bonds between two humans, and babies and toddlers form attachments with the various key people in their lives. These connections happen between infants and their caregivers, parents, siblings and others they interact with. Attachments form through repeated interactions, and each attachment relationship may look different.
Developmental experts use this understanding of early attachments to comprehend how early childhood may influence child development and expectations in future connections.
The study and application of attachment theory is an evolving field of research, now with growing awareness of the tightly controlled and largely white-dominant studies that have defined traditional early childhood attachment styles emerging. Studies of connections across sociocultural boundaries can help professionals and parents understand how to interpret attachment styles with care.
The four primary parent-child relationship attachment styles that catalyzed this theory stem from research conducted by John Bowlby, a British psychiatrist and psychologist. Bowlby first began investigating the topic in the 1930s before collaborating with Mary Salter Ainsworth in 1950 to expand the research. Bowlby felt that attachment was key to our evolutionary survival — that people, especially infants and the very young, depend on strong and enduring connections with others who can provide not only comfort but security from harm or danger.
These early childhood attachment styles have been used to frame our understanding of relationships, particularly adult-child relationships, but emerging studies in the field and discourse around cultural inclusivity challenge these framings from the 20th century. Perspective shifts and the rise of new data cement the importance of consulting the expertise of professionals and resisting overgeneralizations or self-diagnosis.
Secure attachments are supported by caregivers who respond to a baby or toddler’s physical and emotional needs with consistency and care. According to Bowlby’s theory, signs of healthy attachment in toddlers include a preference for a familiar caregiver. In a structured observation, a toddler with a secure attachment style may use that caregiver as a secure base while exploring, then seek proximity or seek comfort when distressed—the caregiver serves as a safe haven.
Some children become upset during separation and are soothed at the caregiver’s return; others show less visible distress. These are examples of interaction, not signs that establish attachment security on their own.
It’s important to note that all babies are born hardwired to form attachments and naturally seek their caregivers to build ties. For example, an infant will hold eye contact or touch, smile, or coo at a caregiver to forge bonds. These cues help empower responsive and attuned caregiving — a reciprocal relationship based on being in sync with the baby’s behavior and responding appropriately.
Early social development such as looking at a caregiver’s face, smiling in response and calming when picked up. These are opportunities for connection and emotional support; a smile or moment of calm does not, by itself, show that an infant is securely attached.
Ambivalent attachment—also called resistant or anxious attachment—is observed when a child shows separation distress and has difficulty settling during reunion with the caregiver. An anxious attachment style describes a pattern within that observed relationship, not a conclusion to draw from one difficult goodbye. Research has associated inconsistent behavior in caregiver responses with this pattern at the group level; an observation cannot establish the cause in an individual family.
It is important to note that young children demonstrate the connections they form with others in different ways depending on the person and context. This concept is called relational specificity. Think of it as the way a young child demonstrates their attachment to a parent may look different from the attachment relationship with a grandparent or sibling, but all represent attachments.
Young children who don’t actively seek out their caregiver for comfort or emotional support are noted as demonstrating avoidant attachment styles. Infants and toddlers with an avoidant attachment may also display little or no emotion when a caregiver departs or returns. This style — also called dismissive,anxious-avoidant attachment, or insecure avoidant attachment — may result when a young child loses a sense of security in their environment. For example, child trauma can impact a baby’s relationship with their caregiver and create potential distrust that leads to avoidant attachment.
A child may appear self reliant in the observed interaction, but less visible comfort-seeking does not mean the child has no need for comfort. The observation alone cannot explain why the child responded this way.
Disorganized attachment describes a pattern in which trained observers identify contradictory behaviors or signs of disorientation during a structured child–caregiver assessment. Disorganized attachment, also called fearful-avoidant attachment, is rare. Observations show that younger children with this style sometimes displayed human threat responses — fight, flight, or freeze — during caregiver interactions.
These infants and toddlers may also express inconsistent reactions to a caregiver leaving or returning. For example, the young child might engage in self-harming behavior or stiffen when approached. Babies may even display fear or distress in the caregiver’s presence, and caregiver behavior may also be erratic.
A disorganized attachment style is a research classification, not a diagnosis or proof of maltreatment. Childhood trauma is one possible concern in a broader assessment, but this classification alone cannot establish that trauma occurred.
Yes, mental health includes babies.
The progression below offers examples of what professionals may observe, not milestones for assigning an attachment style.
Responsive adults also support emotional regulation through co-regulation—helping a child manage feelings through a calm voice, closeness and other supportive interactions.
These early experiences matter for child development, including social-emotional development and mental health, but no attachment pattern predicts one child’s future relationships. For practical examples, see co-regulation strategies for infants and toddlers.
Research supports a measured view. A 2023 meta-analysis found a modest association between child–mother attachment security and children’s prosocial behavior, such as helping and sharing, across 35 studies involving 4,611 children (r = .19).
The studies show an association across groups, not what will happen to a particular child. A child’s early attachment classification cannot tell us what their close relationships will be like later in life. Adult attachment and adult attachment styles describe adult relationships; they should not be inferred from a single observation in childhood.
It simply doesn’t capture the nuances of different environments, family (whether biologically or nonbiologically defined) dynamics and structures, sociocultural values, and ways children can be raised. More applied research must analyze how attachment affects child development with a wider lens for practical and clinical value.
A primary gap in the research is the omission of natural variations in child-rearing in individualist societies versus collectivist ones. We see differences between individualist and collectivist societies around things like locus of control, prioritization of individual versus group, novelty-seeking social behaviors, and security-seeking behaviors, to name a few.
As a result, strong ties and a close community are hallmarks of collectivist societies and substantially influence the connections between caregivers and young children. For example, distrust of strangers is often high in these societies. A young child who experiences stress or anxiety in a stranger’s presence is exhibiting normal, healthy behavior for their culture. Assessing this natural reaction through fixed definitions of secure versus insecure attachment in babies is a disservice. Young children form various attachments, and all contribute to their emotional and social evolution.
Attachment research must also account for the people involved in each relationship. A child may have a distinct attachment relationship with each caregiver, including someone other than a primary caregiver. Temperament—differences in how children tend to respond to the world—is not itself an attachment style.
A 2024 analysis of seven studies involving 872 children found only a small association between one aspect of temperament and having multiple insecure-resistant attachment relationships.
Cultural context matters when interpreting behavior. Caregiving arrangements, family routines and social support can differ across communities. A 2025 review found gaps in how attachment measures had been adapted and validated for Indigenous children in the studies it examined.
Those gaps call for care in applying a classification; they do not support assumptions about any particular child or culture. Stranger wariness or distress in an unfamiliar setting, by itself, does not establish attachment security.
Further, a rush to label a baby or toddler with a narrow lens can do more harm to their psychological health than good. For instance, basing child welfare decisions on the observation of a single interaction in a stressful setting could lead to a faulty conclusion about the quality of the attachment relationship(s) that’s not in the child’s best interests.
One observation also cannot establish childhood trauma or a mental health condition. Professionals should consider the child’s relationships and behavior over time, the family’s perspective and the limits of the assessment before drawing a high-stakes conclusion.
In short, attachment research still has multiple gaps, and the formation of secure attachments, while optimal, is not the only indicator of a healthy, well-adjusted child.
Consider the following to help build a foundation for healthy attachments, and explore our other resources on promoting healthy early development.
There will be times when caregivers misunderstand a young child’s needs or miss a cue, and these moments can rupture trust. For example, a caregiver may not notice that a baby wants to be picked up until the baby’s cries grow louder. The caregiver can return, offer comfort and stay with the baby as they settle. Emotional overreactions can also produce stress and disrupt trust.
But intentional repair can help restore strong and healthy emotional ties. This process involves acknowledging the rupture and responding with a comforting and sensitive response.
A child who begins to seek comfort again is experiencing reconnection within that attachment relationship. Caregivers do not need to respond perfectly every time; noticing a mismatch and reconnecting matters.
Attachment is a reciprocal connection — it involves the active participation of both the child and caregiver. Try playing with infants and toddlers in serve and return interactions. These are moments when caregivers engage in back-and-forth expression or conversation. A caregiver might respond to a baby’s coo with a smile and a few words, then pause for the baby’s next sound. When a toddler points to a bird, the adult can follow their interest: “You see the bird. It’s flying.”
Talk to your baby and respond to your baby’s coos and vocalizations. Playing peek-a-boo is a simple game and a classic example.
Serve and return can also begin when a caregiver responds to a baby’s cries with comfort. These back-and-forth exchanges support early attachment and emotional bonds while giving children opportunities to practice communication and social skills.
Such interactions enhance mutual attunement, enabling dyadic symbiosis and the formation of healthy attachments. Serve and return also promotes cognitive, physical, and emotional development and these interactions are critical to promoting the “dance of attunement.”
Consistency and predictability help create a solid foundation for forming secure attachments.
Caregivers build trust when they’re attuned and responsive to the baby or toddler’s needs and fulfill them regularly and predictably. The young child develops a sense of security that the caregiver will be there for support and comfort, strengthening the dyad bond.
Consistent and expected caregiver behavior is also the key to nurturing emotional regulation and healthy independence. When caregivers are consistently attuned and engaged, follow through on promises, set clear boundaries, and build routines, they create a reliable framework for secure attachment. The young child grows to understand that they can explore their world while still feeling safe and protected.
A familiar greeting at drop-off or a consistent goodbye before a caregiver leaves can help a child know what to expect. Routines can change, and no single interaction determines whether a child is securely attached.
Download our Positive Parenting infographic.
A young child can form close relationships with more than one caregiver. As described earlier, relational specificity means a child’s attachment relationship with an educator may look different from the relationship with a parent or grandparent. A familiar educator can become an attachment figure without replacing anyone in the family.
In early childhood settings, responsive educators can greet a child warmly, keep daily routines familiar and offer comfort during transitions. When a drop-off is difficult, an educator might learn from the family what usually helps, stay close as the child settles and share what happened later that day.
These exchanges give families and educators useful observations and social support as they care for the child together.
