Attachment language can be incredibly pathologising: anxious, avoidant, dismissive, disorganised. They’re not validating terms, and they hardly inspire self-worth or confidence. Furthermore, attachment language can be used to blame and shame, and is often an over-generalisation of how people show up in relationships. Because of the way they are thrown around with abandon, they have lost much of their meaning. The way attachment language is used in popular psychology today was never how it was intended to be used.

When attachment concepts were first developed by John Bowlby and Mary Main back in the 1950s and 1960s, the idea was that these attachment descriptions described adaptive behaviours or tendencies rather than referring to categories of people. In modern popular psychological usage, attachment labels have also become types, ways of categorising people: “I’m avoidant” or “They’re anxious” are common phrases I hear used by couples.

One issue with attachment terminology is that the descriptions have lost nuance, become absolutes, and are often used as a means of stereotyping people. Because attachment language has taken on a pathological dimension, it means that people prize secure attachment above all else. The weaknesses of secure attachment and the inherent strengths of insecure attachment styles are glossed over.

Attachment is fluid. It changes across the lifespan and sometimes even within the same relationship. There are occasions when we may feel the need for more distance, and other times, more closeness. And yet, there are other times when we feel happy and content with our relationship arrangements.

In the Psychobiological Approach to Couples Therapy (PACT), we don’t use the standard attachment labels. Instead, we use the terms islands, anchors and waves to refer to the three different styles. These terms are more evocative and encompass a wider range of behaviours and needs. They are also less pathologising. Nobody wants to be called a dismissive avoidant, but being called an island is bearable.

Below is a quick summary of islands, anchors, and waves, including the strengths, weaknesses, and relationship tasks of each style.

Islands

Islands are those people considered to have an avoidant attachment style. Like the name suggests, islands are separate and self-contained. They tend towards independence, self-reliance, and self-regulation of emotional states. They value and prefer personal space, privacy, and autonomy; they can also feel overwhelmed by too much closeness and seek safety in solitude. In conflict, islands often withdraw or shut down. Time-outs and time apart are regulating and calming.

Islands often had intrusive, overbearing or inconsistent parenting, where they learnt to minimise their own needs and emotions. A common complaint by islands’ partners is that they withdraw or become emotionally unavailable during stress and that they cannot identify needs or name emotions. Islands intensely fear rejection and will often downplay their own feelings and needs to avoid facing it.

Islands’ strengths are their self-sufficiency and self-reliance. They are generally calm under pressure and don’t get swept up in the moment. They are respectful and honouring of others’ autonomy and independence. They tend to be slower thinkers than waves but demonstrate profound depth.

The critical relationship tasks for Islands are to learn how to become more comfortable with relational closeness, name their feelings and express their needs directly, and build tolerance for healthy interdependence.

Waves

Waves are our anxiously attached folk. They are highly attuned to connection and often pursue closeness in relationships, sometimes to the point of compulsion. They have high needs for external reassurance and validation, especially in moments of relationship stress. Like their name, waves bring a lot of intensity and energy to a relationship. When they don’t receive connection or reassurance, they will react with a lot of energy and distress. If this need goes unmet, however, their energy will crash and they will withdraw like a wave breaking and receding into the ocean.

Waves often had inconsistent or unattuned parents and learned that if they amplified their distress, they could elicit a response from them. A common complaint regarding waves is that they are demanding, clingy, or critical. At their core, they seek security and fear abandonment.

Waves experience heightened nervous system arousal during conflict and may have difficulty self-soothing without external regulation from their partner.

Waves bring passion, emotional intensity, and deep attunement to relationships. They are highly empathetic, expressive, and committed to closeness, often noticing subtle shifts in connection. Their pursuit of intimacy fosters warmth and openness. When balanced, waves inspire vulnerability, honesty, and strong bonds, enriching partnerships with energy and devotion.

The pivotal relationship tasks for waves are to build capacity to regulate anxiety internally, communicate needs clearly, and recognise that intimacy can be achieved without constant pursuit, fostering healthier, more balanced bonds.

Anchors

Anchors describes individuals with a more secure attachment style. They are fluid in balancing autonomy with intimacy and can self-regulate or co-regulate emotions as needed. Anchors act steadily, responsively, and reliably during times of conflict.

Anchors often had caregivers who were consistently available, attuned, and supportive, giving the anchor a template for safe connection. Relationally, anchors can serve as a stabilising presence. They can listen, compromise, and collaborate while maintaining self-awareness. They often model secure relating, fostering trust, empathy, and resilience in the relationship system.

In truth, being an anchor is not all idealistic and presents its own challenges. Anchors are sometimes naïve and overly trusting of people, leaving them open to exploitation. Anchors often don’t have great street smarts because they never had a need to learn them. Anchors may struggle with over-functioning as the “steady one,” neglecting their own needs to maintain harmony. They can slip into passivity, avoiding conflict rather than addressing issues. They risk burnout in uneven dynamics, and partners may lean too heavily on them, creating an imbalance in emotional responsibility.

The relationship task for anchors is to deepen their awareness of their own needs while using their natural stability to help the couple regulate together.

Bottom line

It’s time we got away from the pathologising and shaming language of attachment. Attachment language describes behaviours rather than people and understanding attachment tells us what our strengths are but also where we need to grow.

If you want to learn more about how attachment influences you and your relationship, reach out to learn more about couples therapy.