Attachment theory, initially developed by John Bowlby, has evolved to incorporate neurobiological findings and to illuminate the impact of early relational trauma on development. A secure attachment in infancy (formed through consistent, attuned caregiving) is now understood as a primary protector against the harmful effects of stress (Schore, 2001). By contrast, trauma in the context of attachment—such as abuse, neglect, or frightening caregiving—can derail the child’s capacity to regulate emotions and can imprint dysfunctional relational patterns. Allan Schore and colleagues have extensively described the neurobiology of attachment, showing that during the first years of life, the infant’s right brain (especially limbic areas involved in emotion regulation) is built by interactive regulation with the caregiver (Schore, 2001, 2003). When caregivers provide “good-enough” regulation—soothing distress, offering safety and joy—the child’s developing nervous system learns to manage arousal and affect efficiently. Schore notes that secure attachment experiences facilitate maturation of the infant’s stress response systems (the central limbic circuits and the autonomic nervous system), wiring the capacity for self-regulation and resilience (Schore, 2012). Secure attachment is often described as the earliest defense against trauma-induced psychopathology.
Conversely, in an environment of chronic maltreatment or unpredictability, the attachment system itself becomes a source of trauma. Disorganized attachment—first identified by Mary Ainsworth and later refined by Mary Main—is a pattern observed in infants who experience their caregiver as simultaneously a source of fear and of needed comfort. This often occurs in situations of abuse or extreme neglect. The infant’s attachment behaviors (approach, avoidance, help-seeking) break down into disorientation or “freezing” because the caregiver is frightening or frightened. Schore (2003) characterizes disorganized attachment as a form of relational trauma that leads to dysregulation: the caregiver fails to help the infant modulate high arousal, and often is the very trigger of terror. The infant caught in this dilemma shows what Schore calls two psychobiological response patterns to trauma: hyperarousal and dissociation. Initially, the baby ramps up into sympathetic hyperarousal—heart rate and stress hormones surging—signaled by frantic distress, crying, even vomiting as the agitation escalates. If no rescue or repair is provided, a second wave ensues: dissociation (a parasympathetic dominant “shutdown”), where the child disengages, falls into a stunned, numb state, gazing off with a glazed look. Notably, these are the same two core defensive modes seen in adult PTSD (fight/flight hyperarousal and freeze/dissociative surrender). Thus, disorganized attachment in infancy can be seen as an early analog of PTSD, where the lack of secure attachment leads to a fragmented internal state. Studies by Main and Solomon (1990) found that a high proportion of maltreated infants (e.g., 80% in some samples) exhibit disorganized attachment, and that these children later show elevated risk for dissociative symptoms and trauma-related problems in adulthood.
Attachment theorists such as Anabel González and Alessandro Talia have extended these ideas into clinical practice with adults. They note that adults with complex trauma histories often have unresolved or disorganized attachment states (as seen on the Adult Attachment Interview), which means that their early experiences of attachment figures involved fear, inconsistency, or chaos. Such individuals may present in therapy with intense fears of abandonment alongside distrust of closeness—essentially, the attachment system is trauma-organized. Talia’s research (Talia et al., 2019) has shown that unresolved attachment in clients can manifest as dysregulated interpersonal behavior even in the therapy room, making it hard for them to utilize the therapist as a secure base. At the same time, the therapist’s attachment orientation and attunement skills play a role in whether a corrective emotional experience can occur. González (2012), writing on complex trauma, emphasizes helping clients develop an “adult self” that can care for wounded child parts—essentially fostering a secure internal attachment where none existed externally. In treating trauma, attachment-informed therapists focus on establishing a safe, consistent relationship that allows the client’s disorganized internal working models to be reorganized. The neurobiology here is compelling: repeated experiences of a regulating other (even later in life) can potentially rewire right-brain networks for attachment, improving emotion regulation and lowering defensive alarm responses (Schore, 2012). In short, attachment theory provides a relational lens for trauma: it teaches us that trauma is often interpersonal, and thus recovery, too, must frequently occur through new, healthy relationships.
Traumatic Attachment and Attachment Shock
In the context of psychotraumatology, the term traumatic attachment describes relational bonds formed in environments of danger, unpredictability, or neglect, especially during early development. Unlike secure attachment, which fosters regulation and safety, traumatic attachment forms when the caregiver is simultaneously a source of protection and threat (Schore, 2003; Main & Hesse, 1990). Children in such environments must bond with caregivers they fear, resulting in a state of chronic disorganization and fear that remains unresolved (Lyons-Ruth et al., 1999). This leads to enduring neurobiological adaptations: heightened amygdala reactivity, poor vagal tone, and underdevelopment of prefrontal circuits required for emotion regulation (Schore, 2001; Schore, 2012).
Clinically, traumatic attachment manifests in what González (2012) calls “attachment trauma,” in which the client exhibits deep fear of closeness alongside desperate longing for connection. Clients may oscillate between idealizing and devaluing their therapists, reenacting early relational trauma. Alessandro Talia and colleagues (2019) found that clients with unresolved or disorganized attachment styles often have difficulty using the therapeutic relationship as a secure base, due to implicit relational expectations rooted in traumatic early experiences. Therapeutic interventions for traumatic attachment involve repairing relational templates by establishing trust, consistency, and emotional attunement within the therapy dyad—essentially providing the nervous system with a new relational experience that can gradually overwrite the old patterns.
Attachment shock, a term developed by psychiatrist Frank Corrigan, further refines our understanding of relational trauma. Corrigan (2014, 2021) defines attachment shock as the sudden, overwhelming experience of discovering that one’s primary attachment figure is not a source of safety, but of harm or abandonment. It is not merely a chronic relational failure but an acute **shattering.
Attachment shock, a term developed by psychiatrist Frank Corrigan, further refines our understanding of relational trauma. Corrigan (2014, 2021) defines attachment shock as the sudden, overwhelming experience of discovering that one’s primary attachment figure is not a source of safety, but of harm or abandonment. It is not merely a chronic relational failure but an acute shattering of trust and coherence, often embedded with toxic shame and structural dissociation. Corrigan argues that this shock can be so devastating to the developing self that it results in disintegrative defenses, leading to the emergence of dissociative parts, often split between the need for care and the terror of vulnerability (Corrigan & Hull, 2015). From a neurobiological perspective, attachment shock triggers intense sympathetic arousal (panic, terror) that, if unresolved, can lead to parasympathetic collapse (numbing, despair), mediated by the periaqueductal gray and other subcortical circuits (Corrigan et al., 2021).
Attachment shock is especially relevant in therapy when clients begin to trust the therapist but then experience a rupture or misattunement. The response can be intense and disproportionate because it taps into the original shock of betrayal or abandonment in infancy. Corrigan (2014) emphasizes the need for shame-informed, compassion-based interventions that validate the pain of the shock and avoid retraumatizing the client through unintended ruptures. Therapeutic work with such clients often involves titrating relational closeness, building affective tolerance, and addressing internalized shame defenses that guard against further disintegration.
Together, the concepts of traumatic attachment and attachment shock deepen our understanding of how attachment systems become trauma-organized. They explain why trauma survivors may resist closeness even as they long for it, why therapy may evoke panic rather than comfort, and why structural dissociation often arises in relational contexts. Integrating this knowledge encourages therapists to view relational ruptures not as resistance, but as expressions of a nervous system shaped by betrayal. Through attuned, regulated therapeutic relationships, clinicians can offer reparative experiences that support both neural integration and emotional healing.