Does this sound familiar?
What marks this style is not one pattern but two that cancel each other out. That is why both halves of the sentences below usually ring true, and that is the point.
You want someone to stay. And when they stay, it gets too close. Both are real, and not in turns but in the same moment.
You write a message, delete it, write it again and do not send it. Afterwards you are annoyed at both: that you wanted to and that you did not.
Closeness feels like relief and like danger at once, with no order to it that could be explained.
You leave because you are afraid the other person will leave. Afterwards you know it was not logical. In the moment it was the only thing.
You cannot explain your two sides to anyone without it sounding like an excuse. Not to yourself either, and that is the loneliest part of it.
After a good stretch what arrives is watchfulness rather than calm, as if something still open had to be paid for.
Why this does not resolve
With the other two insecure styles there is one strategy that works and has a price. Here there are two, and each makes the other one useless.
The alarm goes off
As with the anxious style, something ambiguous gets read as unambiguous and the body goes up. The impulse that follows is: move closer, sort it out, make contact.
And with the moving closer, the second alarm
Closeness is the place where it used to be dangerous. So the other strategy takes hold: create distance, get matter-of-fact, leave. Not one after the other, but on top of each other.
Both at once, and neither arrives
Move closer to be safe. Move away to be safe. Because each of the two strategies sets off the other, neither one settles, and the relief that at least briefly arrives with the other styles does not come.
That is why this style is more exhausting, not «worse»From outside it looks unpredictable
The other person experiences attention and withdrawal without seeing the rule behind it, and reacts unpredictably in turn. That is the same mechanism that produced the pattern in the first place, now running in both directions.
It is not a contradiction in you. It is two answers to two real dangers, and they come from the same history.
Where it comes from
With the other insecure styles the attachment figure is either unpredictably available or reliably unavailable. In both cases one strategy remains that gets something.
This style arises where the same person was the source of comfort and the source of fear. Then no strategy is usable: going towards is dangerous, and so is going away. A child who has to learn both at once learns both and keeps both.
That is why this style is more often connected than the other three with neglect, with violence, and with losses nobody accompanied. That is a probability and not a statement about you. There are people with this result where none of it applies. It is, however, the reason a notice stands at the top of this page rather than a buy button.
And if you still want one
Then the one for your higher value, and best alongside support rather than instead of it. Further down it says which one that is and in what order.
What is not true
More nonsense is written about this style online than about the others put together, and some of it is harmful.
What helps first
Shorter than with the other styles, and that is deliberate: what helps most here is not in a workbook.
Look for a professional, alongside everything else
As a first step and not as a last resort. In Switzerland the way in is through your GP. Since 1 July 2022 basic insurance covers psychological psychotherapy on a doctor's referral, and fifteen sessions are provided per referral.
Start with the higher value
If your attachment anxiety is higher, the first lever is the trigger log from the anxious pattern. If avoidance is higher, it is the body signal from the avoidant one. One scale, not both.
Do not rush it
Start smaller than feels worthwhile. A step that is too big sets off the second strategy with this style, and then it was not merely ineffective, it costs confidence in the next attempt.
And the workbooks?
Honest answer: they are not written for this style. They are made for high values on one of the two scales.
What they can still do: explain the pattern you work on first, and provide a way of going about it. What they cannot do: accompany the interplay between the two patterns. And that interplay is your actual subject.
If you take one, take the one for your higher value, and best alongside support rather than instead of it. Chapter 12 in both workbooks describes the way there.
The other three
With this result it is especially worth reading the two insecure pages. There the patterns stand separately, and separately they are easier to grasp.
If it is acute,
do not wait for
a test result
If you are in a very bad place right now, a questionnaire is the wrong tool. These Swiss numbers are staffed around the clock.