Dynamics of Secure Attachment
Psychodynamics of Secure Attachment
Attachment theory is a robust framework for understanding how relationships shape development and contribute to lifelong patterns of relating to others. While this theory is instrumental in conceptualizing patients' relational issues, I sometimes find its categories too broad and easily treated as static characterological descriptors. This is why an attachment lens is best utilized alongside concepts considering the micro-movements of a living, dynamic relational system. This paper explores the dynamism of secure attachment through the lenses of Allan Schore’s research on right-brain development and Ed Tronick’s Mutual Regulation Model. Focusing on secure attachment, I will examine how elements such as right-brain primacy, rupture-repair cycles, resilience, and implicit relational knowing play essential roles in establishing the psychodynamics of attachment. My analysis also considers humans as living systems, nonverbal relating, dyadically expanded states of consciousness, and dissociation in secure attachment formation.
From infancy, the attachment system of the mind organizes the nervous system around other people. This system’s main aim is the regulation of excitation. It is deeply rooted in right-brain development, responsible for processing nonverbal social-emotional information, imaginative thought, and spatial awareness. This hemisphere plays a critical role in processing facial expressions, emotional tones, and gestures, which enables caregivers and infants to ‘read’ each other. This is no different than any relationship, but the central element of the infant-caregiver dyad is the disproportional amount of neuroplasticity within the infant's brain. The first three months of life are filled with stimuli that can overwhelm the sensory processing faculties.
Moreover, because the infant’s neuronal structure is incredibly plastic and capable of vastly changing, the impact of sensory stimuli is enormous and must be managed somewhat carefully initially. Stimuli can only be integrated into the infant's somato-psychic representation of self when the autonomic nervous system remains within a specific range of excitation. Learning from experience is impossible when the nervous system is overwhelmed. Therefore, the regulatory aim of secure attachment is to maintain an optimal balance of stimulation and regulation.
Through nonverbal interactions, securely attached infants develop a latent understanding of their caregiver's emotional states. As the Boston Change Process Study Group describes, this ‘implicit relational knowing’ provides a foundation for relational trust and the expectation that others are inherently safe, available, and responsive. Unlike the language-focused left hemisphere, the right brain implicitly processes nonverbal cues and emotional signals. Schore (2011) notes, “The right hemisphere has been linked to implicit information processing, as opposed to the more explicit and more conscious processing tied to the left hemisphere” (p. 75). He links the right brain to the psychodynamic unconscious and primary processes. This implicit relational knowledge is what we can call the unconscious parts of the ego-id. It is embedded in our automatic responses to others and can be seen most visibly in cases of increased stress, such as in the Strange Situation Test. This structured experiment by Ainsworth (1978) demonstrates how securely attached infants use their caregiver as a ‘secure base,’ exhibiting distress during separation and relief upon reunion. The key element to observe in the strange situation experiment is what happens when the caregiver returns. These observable patterns reflect their internalized expectation of safety and responsiveness, grounded in early nonverbal attunement and the regulatory processes of the right brain hemisphere.
Securely attached infants develop an intuitive sense that their caregiver is attuned and available through consistent, subtle, non-verbal interactions. Through consistent verbal and nonverbal interactions, securely attached infants internalize a sense of their caregiver's availability, forming what Bowlby called a secure ‘internal working model’ of relationships. Stored in non-declarative implicit memory, this model fosters an enduring sense of security in most future relationships (Palombo et al., 2010, p. 324). Daniel Stern refers to this internal structure as ‘representations of interactions that have been generalized’ (Stern,1985, p. 110), while object relations theorists describe it as an ‘internal object.’ These internalized representations shape relational expectations and serve as blueprints for relational dynamics throughout life, manifesting as transference within the psychotherapeutic setting.
Tronick's Mutual Regulation Model challenges the idea that infants are passive recipients of caregiving. Within this model, Tronick asserts his hypothesis of the dyadic expansion of consciousness, in which he states that "each individual...is a self-organizing system that creates his or her states of consciousness (states of brain organization), which can be expanded into more coherent and complex states in collaboration with another self-organizing system" (Tronick, 2007, p. 421). This points to the co-creation of meaning within relationships and suggests that humans are living systems constantly interacting with their environments. This dynamic equilibrium of mutual regulation is where multiple nervous systems regulate and expand one another. Tronick calls this the 'moment of meeting,' a shared expansion of consciousness—an increased nervous system complexity—that creates trust and connection. He describes it as "a particularly effective way of growing and expanding complexity [when] two or more individuals convey and apprehend...meanings from each other to create a dyadic state of consciousness" (p. 15). This co-created space forms the essence of the child's sense of self.
No relationship is perfect; ruptures and misattunement mark all our primary attachments. However, Tronick highlights that these disruptions are not harmful by themselves; he says, "Reparation has the effect of the infant and adult coming to experience and implicitly know that the negative experience of a mismatch can be transformed into a positive, affective match" (p. 28). This capacity for rupture and repair is central to secure attachment. When caregivers respond to a child's distress, they offer a template for resilience—showing that disconnection is impermanent and that connection can be restored. Over time, these moments build an inner sense that relational rupture is only temporary and correctable. Through these cycles, the infant gradually learns to self-regulate, developing a solid affective core to help them face relational stress with confidence and adaptability.
The infantile mind can begin to think when the caregiver-infant dyad maintains a sense of dynamic equilibrium through rupture-repair cycles. This enables the mind to go from concrete-level functioning—the world of ‘things-in-themselves’—to symbolic-level functioning. At the level of symbolic capacity (c.f., mentalization), the world of things, objects, and ideas is linked within an interconnected web of associations that creates expanded states of consciousness and complexity of meanings. This is the process of the development of the mind and thinking itself. Before symbolic-level thinking capacity is developed, a mind stuck in concrete thinking is forced to dissociate.
Dissociation as a regulatory strategy is minimal in secure attachment; the caregiver's responsiveness helps the child relate without needing intense defenses. Schore (2011) emphasizes that secure attachment interactions rely heavily on "spontaneous right-brain-to-right-brain visual-facial, auditory-prosodic, and tactile-proprioceptive emotionally charged attachment communications" (p. 79). These nonverbal cues help regulate the infant's nervous system arousal level, preventing pathogenic dissociative responses. Additionally, moments of benign dissociation may even serve as adaptive, temporary withdrawals that allow the infant to self-regulate without severing the relational tie. Periods of averting eye gaze may enable the infant to internally reset without disconnecting from the caregiver. This may also be a precursor to the later exploratory phases of separation-individuation and ambulation (Mahler et al., 1975). Confident in the caregiver’s availability, a securely attached child can feel safe enough to explore their environment, knowing they can return for reassurance when needed. Nonverbal exchanges (e.g., shared eye contact, smiles, gentle touch, etc.) maintain the attachment bond, providing relational continuity and going-on-being (Winnicott, 1965). This reflects the success of early co-regulation and the adequate security it fosters. The caregiver's presence as a secure base supports the child's relational confidence, gradually internalizing this relational availability as a part of their self-regulatory capacity.
Securely attached infants learn to transform negative emotions into positive ones through repeated cycles of rupture and repair. This back-and-forth process within a stable relationship builds meaning out of painful experiences. Tronick explains that "successful meaning-making is the constitutive process of relationship formation...A successful increase in complexity leads to a sense of connection to the other person" (p. 29). The rhythm of rupture and repair imprints the infant's psyche with the expectation of comfort, enabling freedom to be curious about and interested in the world. Tronick, Schore, and many relational psychoanalytic theorists remind us that secure attachment goes beyond meeting needs; it is about a co-created experience of relational contact, which always includes relational rupture.
The connection between two people builds a shared emotional landscape, where both minds involved become simultaneously more complex and organized. As Stern (1985) noted, these moments of ‘mutual recognition’ help shape the infant's sense of self and understanding of others. Tronick goes further in his hypothesis, opening the door to mentalization theory, saying, "A successful increase in complexity leads to a sense of connection to the other person in the dyadic state, and a relationship to him or her emerges. Importantly, a sense of connection to oneself also develops, accompanied by a feeling of solidity, stability, and continuity of the self. Additionally, the inherent momentum that comes from forming states [of consciousness] leads to a sense of impelling certitude about one’s place in the world—a sense, in or out of awareness, that ‘I know this (whatever it is) to be true’” (Tronick, 2007, p. 29).
The notion of secure attachment, originating in Bowlby’s research, has been expanded by Tronick’s and Schore’s relational models of mutual regulation. These advances are significant because they broaden our understanding of the developing mind away from any notion of static categories of attachment (i.e., secure, avoidant, ambivalent, disorganized) into a dynamic exchange between people that is forever evolving into higher degrees of complexity and nuance. Then, we have Fonagy’s concept of mentalization, which is the capacity to see oneself and others as having separate thoughts, feelings, and intentions. Peter Fonagy (2001) suggests that this skill grows out of early attachment experiences, where a caregiver’s attuned responses help the child understand emotions and mental states. With a responsive caregiver, the child approaches mental processes—both their own and others—with curiosity and empathy, strengthening their internal working model and laying a foundation for relational insight. The capacity for thinking to occur enables everyday repression to function and thus brings the part of the personality out of narcissistic-level functioning and into a neurotic level that allows for the mind to ‘dream while awake’ and represent conflictual processes that can be worked out in the transference.
This paper highlighted the bidirectional nature of attachment relationships, where rupture and repair build resilience, and dyadically expanded states foster emotional and relational growth. The markers of secure attachment—exploration, trust, self-regulation, and emotional openness—stem from co-regulatory experiences, right-brain primacy, and the presence of a caring other who serves as a secure base. By examining secure attachment through a dynamic lens, we see that it is far more than the absence of insecurity—it is the presence of an active, co-constructed here-and-now relational exchange. This understanding informs the importance of relational presence and attunement in clinical practice. The therapeutic relationship becomes a space where implicit relational models can evolve, offering repair, transformation, and growth opportunities. Neuroplasticity inherent in human development shows that the potential for change and resilience remains even after early disruptions. Ultimately, secure attachment provides more than relational stability; it fosters the ability to explore, create, and engage with the world with curiosity and confidence.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A Psychological study of the strange situation (p. 37). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fonagy, P. (2001). Attachment Theory and Psychoanalysis. New York: Other Press.
Mahler, M. S., Pine, F., & Bergman, A. (1975). The psychological birth of the human infant: Symbiosis and individuation. Basic Books.
Palombo, J., Bendicsen, H.K., and Koch, B.J. (2010). Chapter 15 – John Bowlby, chapter 16 – Mary Salter Ainsworth, chapter 18 – Peter Fonagy. In Guide to psychoanalytic developmental theories (283-302, 303-314, 335-347). New York: Springer.
Schore, A.N. (2011). The right-brain implicit self lies at the core of psychoanalysis.Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 21:75–100, 2011.
Stern, D. N. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant: A view from psychoanalysis and developmental psychology. New York: Basic Books.
Tronick, E. (2007). Introduction, chapter 11, chapter 13, and chapter 29. In The neurobehavioral and social-emotional development of infants and children (1-18, 155-163,177-194. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment: Studies in the theory of emotional development. International Universities Press.
Winnicott, D. W. (1969). The use of an object and relating through identifications. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 50, 711–716.