Nurturing strong bonds for life: Attachment theory vs. attachment parenting
Published on January 18, 2025

As a new parent, nothing is both as attractive and intimidating as a parenting “theory.”
A structured plan for raising your kids and getting the outcomes you desire for them seems to take a lot of the guesswork out—how can I ensure my children know they’re loved? How can I raise them into virtuous people?
The rise of attachment parenting
One such parenting theory that has gained popularity over recent decades is called “attachment parenting,” popularized by Dr. William and Martha Sears. A doctor-and-nurse, husband-and-wife duo, the Sears, posit “7 B’s” that result in a secure attachment between mother and child:
- Birth bonding
- Breastfeeding
- Baby-wearing
- Bedding close to the baby
- Belief in the baby’s cry
- Balance and boundaries
- Beware of baby trainers
Concurrently with the rise of attachment parenting, the word “attachment” itself has become a cultural buzzword—with the four “attachment styles” becoming a regular conversation inside and outside the therapy office. These “styles” of attachment are part of a structure called attachment theory.
The four ‘styles’ are used regularly to help people understand their patterns of relating based on childhood experiences.
I’ve noticed the two become synonymous in many conversations, both on and offline; even recently, once I had decided to write this piece on the topic, a heated exchange erupted on Substack between different mother authors in my network. In order for the discussion to be productive, the two subjects—attachment theory vs. attachment parenting—have to be explored.
Understanding attachment theory
Attachment theory was formulated by psychiatrist John Bowlby in the mid-20th century, and was later developed by psychologist Mary Ainsworth in the 60s and 70s. The framework revolves around the concept of how we evolve to be “attached” in our relationships, and how that pattern is first set by how securely we attach to a caregiver (or multiple) in infancy and childhood.
There are four main attachment style categories that are popularly referred to: Anxious, Avoidant, Disorganized (or Fearful-Avoidant), and Secure.
Bowlby and Ainsworth’s work sorted people’s attachment styles in adulthood into these four categories based on an understanding of how their needs were met in childhood: did they experience a caregiver who was distracted or neglectful, resulting in an anxious attachment style in adulthood? Did they experience abandonment in minor or major ways, causing an Avoidant style? Perhaps their experiences were inconsistent, resulting in a Disorganized way of relating.
The goal, ultimately, is to understand the primary attachment experience so that a person can move towards learning Secure attachment, which allows them to have healthy, mutual, and life-giving relationships.
It is obvious that through the lens of attachment theory, the goal of any parent would be to develop a secure attachment with their child—especially mothers, who are most likely to be the primary caregivers. This is a good and noble goal and sets your children up well to give and receive in healthy relationships later in life. However, the theory also conflates developing a secure attachment style with the tenets of attachment parenting. This oversimplification can lead to some major misconceptions about what actually does develop secure attachment.
Secure attachment vs. attachment parenting
While attachment parenting centers around the practice of the 7 B’s listed above, attachment theory posits that secure attachment is primarily accomplished through attuned, present caregivers. While the 7 B’s are certainly a way to approach being a present, attuned caregiver, they are by no means all fundamental in a literal sense to create a secure attachment.
Some of the 7 B’s are more crucial than others to the creation of a secure attachment, like “belief in the baby’s cry,” or attending to an infant when they express need through crying since it’s the only way they know how. Other principles of attachment parenting, like baby-wearing or even breastfeeding, may adjust out of necessity or preference based on the unique experiences of each mother and child.
The dangers of conflation
Making attachment parenting and attachment theory synonymous can make it seem like in order to create a secure attachment—something that all loving parents hope for—one specific method must be followed.
This can cause divisiveness in our conversations with one another—like I’ve seen both in-person and online—and it can also create anxiety for parents whose circumstances or conscience are directing them down a different path than attachment parenting offers. For instance, a woman who has a traumatic birth experience or is unable to breastfeed may worry that her attachment to her baby is permanently damaged, but that’s not the case. Or, a parent with multiple children may be unable to meet several requirements put forth by attachment parenting.
Deeper still is the interior disposition that conflating the two might create:
While secure attachment is important, every parent must recognize that they will make mistakes, and their children will experience hardship and even trauma.
We have the responsibility to do all we can as parents to ensure our children’s safety and peace, but it is impossible to guarantee their perfection. The discourse around attachment and choices in parenting can sometimes, in my view, imply that we can solidify our children’s identity for them if we follow the steps correctly. While we can guide them and echo God’s voice, it is ultimately He Who is the source of their identity.
Attachment parenting is one sound approach to teaching a child where to find his or her identity, but it is by no means the only way to do so. Continually discerning how to meet everyone’s needs as a family is a deeply unique and complex process. If parents set their hearts and minds on attuning themselves to their individual children and meeting their needs to the best of their ability, they will certainly, albeit imperfectly, echo a God Who is constantly attuned to each one of us.