What Does a Secure Man Actually Look Like?

Not someone who never feels jealous, afraid, or inadequate. Someone whose sense of worth doesn't collapse when those feelings show up

Direct answer: security shows up in what a man does after the feeling, not in whether he feels it at all

I want to start by clearing up the most common misread of what "emotionally secure" actually means, because it shapes everything else in this piece. Becoming a secure adult man doesn't mean he stops feeling jealousy, fear, or inadequacy. He still experiences all of it. What changes is that his internalized sense of self-worth and his trust in other people stop those emotions from triggering the usual maladaptive defenses, withdrawal, shutting down, or bolting into some kind of conquest to prove something to himself (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2020). Security is a resource that sits underneath the feeling, not a filter that keeps the feeling out.

That reframe matters because it means you can't spot a secure man by whether he seems unbothered. You spot him by watching what happens next, whether the jealousy turns into controlling behavior or gets named out loud, whether the fear leads to withdrawal or to reaching for support, whether the inadequacy gets covered up defensively or acknowledged with something closer to equanimity (Justo-Núñez et al., 2022).

Key Takeaways

Secure men feel the same range of difficult emotions as anyone else. The difference is regulation, not immunity, they don't let jealousy, fear, or inadequacy dictate their behavior.

Observable daily markers of security include relational consistency, emotional availability, and calm, non-punitive communication, patterns strong enough to show up even in workplace leadership research, not just romantic relationships.

Secure men treat conflict as a normal part of relational maintenance rather than a threat, and they engage in repair, actively and often without being prompted.

They balance closeness and independence through what researchers call emotional autonomy, comfort with both dependence and independence, rather than picking one and defending it.

Security isn't fixed. Men with a history of insecure attachment can develop what's called earned security through sustained internal and relational work.

The internal foundation: what secure men actually believe about themselves and others

Before getting to the observable behaviors, it's worth understanding the belief structure underneath them, because the behaviors don't make sense without it. Secure attachment rests on two positive models held simultaneously: a positive model of self, and a positive model of others (Blanc et al., 2023; Van Schie et al., 2021). In plain terms, a secure man believes he's worthy of love and care, and he believes the people close to him are actually capable of providing it (Van Schie et al., 2021; Dugan et al., 2022). Both halves matter. Men with a positive self-model but a negative model of others tend to fall into a dismissive pattern, valuing independence and turning away from emotional experience rather than genuinely integrating both models (Blanc et al., 2023).

This isn't just a nice belief to hold, it does measurable work. The secure attachment dimension specifically predicts what researchers call a stronger sense of coherence, the felt sense that life's difficulties are comprehensible, manageable, and meaningful rather than chaotic or overwhelming (Kerekes et al., 2025). And this foundation isn't static. Working models are relatively stable but genuinely revisable, they can shift through experiences that provide real evidence about your own worth and other people's reliability, and improvements in one relationship can cascade into a broader sense of security elsewhere (Dugan et al., 2022).

What secure men actually do, day to day

This is where the research gets genuinely concrete, and I think it's the part worth paying closest attention to, since it moves past theory into something you can actually observe.

Consistency and follow-through show up as the strongest daily predictors across multiple studies, and interestingly, this held true even outside romantic relationships. A qualitative study of male leaders in Slovakia found that relational consistency and emotional availability were the strongest observable markers of psychological safety their employees could point to (Konečná et al., 2026). People explicitly wanted leaders who were approachable, empathetic, and responsive to individual concerns, and predictable emotional signals mattered more than any formal policy (Konečná et al., 2026). Frequent turnover in leadership, meaning a lack of relational continuity itself, actively undermined trust, which tells you consistency isn't a soft nice-to-have, it's functioning as the actual mechanism that makes people feel safe enough to be honest (Konečná et al., 2026).

Calm, non-punitive communication is the second clear marker. In the same research, employees distinguished sharply between leaders who welcomed dissent and reached compromise together, versus those who responded to disagreement with mockery, retaliation, or assigning pointless busywork (Konečná et al., 2026). That distinction maps almost exactly onto what shows up in romantic research too: secure individuals engage in what's called balanced regulation, staying open, approach-oriented, and collaborative rather than withdrawing or exaggerating distress (Girme et al., 2020).

Emotional expressiveness without escalation rounds this out. Secure men actually show higher overall emotional expressivity than insecure men, they're not suppressing more, they're expressing more, just with less negative affect attached to it (Yastıbaş-Kaçar et al., 2025). Anger is a good test case here. Secure attachment shows a significant inverse relationship with anger scores, meaning secure men still feel anger, it just doesn't reliably escalate into hostility or aggression the way it more often does for fearful or dismissing men (Maalouf et al., 2022).

How often do secure men initiate repair after conflict, and does it happen without being asked?

This is worth its own section because it gets at something specific and genuinely measurable: whether repair is something secure men do proactively, or only when pushed into it.

The research points fairly clearly toward proactive. Secure individuals appraise relational stress as a manageable challenge rather than a threat, and that appraisal itself is what drives approach-oriented behavior instead of avoidance (Peters et al., 2024). Framed differently, conflict gets treated as a normal part of relational maintenance rather than a crisis to be managed defensively, and when it's handled with intentional communication, it functions as a constructive catalyst for growth rather than something purely destructive (Asadpour et al., 2025). Secure attachment is positively associated with constructive conflict and transgression repair behavior specifically, which is the closest thing in this research to a direct answer on initiation (Lathren et al., 2021).

There's neural evidence backing up why this repair tends to actually stick rather than being performative. Secure individuals regulate negative affect during romantic conflict through cognitive reappraisal, and this produces earlier and more sustained neural down-regulation of distress compared to suppression, which is the strategy more commonly used by avoidant men (Yang et al., 2025). Reappraisal isn't just a coping trick here, it's associated with measurably different brain activity, frontal theta connectivity reflecting real top-down cognitive control, distinct from the beta-band connectivity that shows up during suppression (Domic-Siede et al., 2025). In plain terms, the repair isn't just a performance of calm, something different is actually happening at the neural level.

There's also a partner-effect worth naming. Receiving more relational maintenance from a partner before a stressful conversation predicts more unity and less conflict afterward, and this effect is particularly strong for men specifically (Afifi et al., 2021). That suggests repair in secure relationships often isn't a solo act at all, it's something reinforced by both people, which fits the collaborative, approach-oriented picture the rest of this research paints.

How secure men balance closeness and independence

This is one of the more conceptually interesting findings in the research, because it resolves what looks like a real tension on the surface. Secure men feel genuinely close to a partner without experiencing that closeness, or the partner's independent behavior, as threatening (Bröning, 2025). Researchers call this emotional autonomy: comfort with both dependence and independence simultaneously, rather than a forced choice between the two (Bröning, 2025).

I think the more useful framing here comes from feminist theory, actually, applied to men's psychology specifically. Relational autonomy reframes independence not as isolation, but as something you actually achieve through interdependence rather than despite it (Elliott et al., 2022). This directly contradicts the more common cultural script of masculine autonomy, self-sufficiency as a discursive ideal, which researchers note is functionally unachievable and tends to actively impede real intimacy rather than protect it (Elliott et al., 2022). Men are, as the researchers put it bluntly, inescapably relationally situated in practice, whatever the independence narrative claims (Elliott et al., 2022).

Behaviorally, this shows up as secure men expressing feelings freely, reflecting openly on discomfort with distance rather than pretending it isn't there, and taking initiative to actually change an uncomfortable relational situation instead of just enduring it silently (Egozi et al., 2023). Relationship styles combining high autonomy with high connectedness are associated with better mental health and satisfaction than low-autonomy configurations across the board (Bröning, 2025), which is a fairly strong empirical case against the idea that independence and closeness are natural opposites.

How secure men handle criticism and feedback

This is worth including because it's one of the clearer real-world tests of security, how someone responds when their sense of self is directly challenged. Securely attached people hold positive representations of both self and others going in, which reduces how much defensive processing gets triggered when criticism actually arrives (Laczkovics et al., 2020; Rogier et al., 2023).

The mechanism underneath this is what researchers call mature defenses, things like accommodation, genuinely taking in and adjusting to new information, rather than immature or reality-distorting defenses like denial (Laczkovics et al., 2020; Ciocca et al., 2020). There's even a neural signature to this difference. Secure attachment correlates with more lingual gyrus activation during self-criticism, a marker of visual mental imagery, suggesting secure people can actually sit with and mentally process self-critical thoughts with more flexibility rather than reacting purely from amygdala-driven threat response (Kim et al., 2020).

Feedback-seeking behavior under stress also differs in a way worth naming. Attachment anxiety predicts more indirect support seeking and excessive reassurance seeking specifically, and indirect support seeking in turn predicts worse depression outcomes over time (Capute et al., 2024). Secure men, by contrast, tend toward more direct, constructive support seeking (Capute et al., 2024), which is a much smaller ask of the people around them and a much more solvable one.

Reframing vulnerability, not avoiding it

There's a cultural piece to this worth including, because it explains part of how men actually get to security rather than just describing what it looks like once they're there. Men who resist rigid, hegemonic masculinity norms tend to reframe vulnerability itself, describing it in interviews as a kind of courage, "gambling with one's cards face up," carrying meanings of strength and unshakeable self-acceptance rather than weakness (Durón Delfín & Leach, 2021). This reframing typically doesn't happen in isolation, it develops through actual conversation and interaction with other people, which lets men deconstruct old judgments about their own feelings collaboratively rather than alone (Durón Delfín & Leach, 2021).

I want to be honest that this reframing isn't always complete or clean. The same research found real contradictions: men who described vulnerability as courageous in the abstract still, in the same interviews, described specific vulnerable states, feeling inadequate, sad, afraid, or lost, as weaknesses when talking about themselves directly (Durón Delfín & Leach, 2021). That gap between the ideal and the lived experience is worth sitting with rather than glossing over. Reframing vulnerability as strength appears to be real, ongoing work, not a switch that flips once and stays flipped.

Is chasing or pursuing conquest something secure men do?

I want to address this directly rather than sidestep it, because it's a specific, common question, and I want to be honest about what the evidence actually supports here rather than stretching thin research to cover a gap. There isn't strong direct research specifically studying adult human male "chasing" or conquest-pursuit behavior through an attachment lens in what's available here. What the research does say, clearly and specifically, is what security replaces that impulse with. Mikulincer and Shaver (2020) describe becoming a secure adult man as expanding your repertoire of emotional responses, so that feelings like jealousy or inadequacy no longer mandate shutting down or bolting into conquest, and instead function as signals for connection and problem-solving.

That's a meaningful, specific claim even without a dedicated study on pursuit behavior itself. It positions conquest-seeking as one of the maladaptive defenses insecurity produces when jealousy or inadequacy show up unregulated, alongside withdrawal and suppression, rather than as some separate, unrelated pattern. The broader jealousy research backs this framing up too. Emotional jealousy itself, the raw feeling triggered by a perceived threat, occurs at similar intensity across all attachment styles (Chursina, 2023). What differs is what happens next: secure men experience significantly fewer intrusive jealous thoughts and fewer controlling behaviors in response to that same feeling (Chursina, 2023). That's the pattern, again: same feeling, different aftermath.

Can a man who wasn't raised secure actually become secure?

This might be the most practically important question in the whole research base, and the answer is genuinely encouraging. Men with a history of insecure attachment can develop what researchers call earned security, and it's described as a real process involving both intrapsychic change and interpersonal change, often supported by working with a trauma-trained clinician (Olufowote et al., 2020). Expanding what masculine identity is allowed to include, and building genuinely meaningful interpersonal connections, are identified as critical recovery factors that help men regulate emotional pain without defaulting to self-destructive behavior (Bennett et al., 2023).

There's a self-reinforcing loop here worth understanding, because it means small changes compound rather than staying isolated. Emotional flexibility is a socialized, learnable skill, not a fixed trait, meaning men can build access to a wider range of emotional expression regardless of how rigid their original socialization was (Croft et al., 2021). And in daily practice, using cognitive reappraisal actually predicts increases in state attachment security over time, which then makes reappraisal easier to access again, a genuinely self-reinforcing cycle of adaptive regulation building on itself (Tammilehto et al., 2022). Self-esteem and self-efficacy work in the same direction: among men specifically, growth in both predicts declines in attachment avoidance over time (Jakubiak et al., 2023), suggesting the self-model and the relational pattern move together rather than one being locked in place by the other.

My take: security is a practice, not a personality type

Here's where I'll say plainly what I think this body of research adds up to. I don't think "secure man" describes a type of person, someone born calm, someone naturally unbothered. I think it describes a set of practiced responses to the same difficult feelings everyone has: the reappraisal instead of the suppression, the direct request instead of the indirect reassurance-seeking, the repair conversation instead of the silent withdrawal or the retaliatory anger. Every piece of this research treats these as skills with a documented developmental path, not as fixed personality traits you either have or don't.

That reframe matters practically. If security were a trait, there wouldn't be much useful to say to a man who wasn't raised with it. But because the research consistently frames this as learnable, reappraisal predicting later security, self-esteem work predicting declining avoidance, therapeutic work producing genuine earned security, there's an actual path here rather than just a diagnosis. I'd also note that none of this requires a man to stop feeling jealous, afraid, or inadequate as some final destination. Those feelings show up in secure men too, consistently, across every study in this research base. What's different is simply what those feelings are allowed to cause.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does being emotionally secure mean a man never feels jealous or afraid? No. Research shows emotional jealousy itself occurs at similar intensity across all attachment styles. The difference in secure men is what happens after the feeling, fewer intrusive thoughts, less controlling behavior, and faster return to a stable baseline, not the absence of the feeling itself.

What's the single strongest daily sign that a man is emotionally secure? Relational consistency and emotional availability show up as the strongest observable predictors across the research, including outside of romantic relationships. Predictable, calm responses over time matter more than any single grand gesture.

Do secure men avoid conflict to keep the peace? No, and this is a common misconception. Secure men treat conflict as a normal part of relational maintenance and tend to engage with it directly through reappraisal and collaborative repair, rather than avoiding it or escalating it.

Can a man become more securely attached later in life, even after an insecure childhood? Yes. Research describes this as earned security, a real process involving internal psychological work and relational experience, often supported by therapy. Emotional flexibility itself is described as a learnable skill rather than a fixed trait.

How do secure men handle criticism differently than insecure men? Secure men tend to use mature psychological defenses like accommodation, genuinely integrating feedback, rather than denial or defensive distortion. This is linked to holding a baseline positive view of both themselves and the person giving the feedback.

Where this leaves us

So what does a secure man actually look like? Not someone unbothered by jealousy, fear, or the fear of inadequacy, those feelings show up for him just like anyone else. He looks like someone who's consistent on an ordinary Tuesday, not just during a crisis. Someone who initiates the repair conversation before being asked to. Someone who can hold closeness and independence at the same time instead of picking one and defending it. The feelings aren't the tell. What he does with them is.

What a secure man actually looks like

Daily relational behavior

Shows up consistently, not just during the good moments or the crises, but on an ordinary Tuesday

Plans time together and follows through, you're not left in ambiguity about when you'll see or hear from him

Is attentive and present when he's with you, phone down, actually there rather than half-elsewhere

Enjoys being in a relationship, not just chasing one, he shows real enthusiasm for partnership itself, not just for winning someone

Talks openly about the relationship itself, status, direction, needs, without avoiding or dreading "the conversation"

Knows his own strengths and weaknesses as a partner and can name them without collapsing into shame or defensiveness

Can be counted on for small promises, texting when he said he would, showing up on time, not just grand gestures

Shows you his real life, home, work, routines, without secrecy or a gap between his public self and his day-to-day one

Emotional safety and conflict

Feels jealousy, fear, or inadequacy like anyone else, but doesn't let those feelings dictate his behavior

Hears criticism without immediate defensiveness, even if it stings, he stays in the conversation rather than shutting it down

Handles criticism through genuine reflection rather than denial, distortion, or retaliation

Acknowledges his own part in a problem and works on solutions instead of assigning all the blame outward

Initiates repair after conflict, an apology, a clarification, a soothing word, without needing to be asked

Treats conflict as normal relationship maintenance, not a threat to be avoided or won

Helps bring the emotional temperature down during stress rather than amplifying the tension

Stays emotionally accessible during conflict, he doesn't disappear, stonewall, or punish with withdrawal

Anger shows up but rarely escalates into hostility or aggression

Communicates calmly even in disagreement, no mockery, no punitive silence

Intimacy, space, and independence

Doesn't chase conquest to soothe jealousy or inadequacy, that impulse gets replaced with reaching for connection instead

Isn't fearful of intimacy, feels genuinely close to a partner without experiencing that closeness as a threat

Doesn't need to prove desirability outside the relationship to feel secure in it

Feels comfortable with both closeness and distance, alone time isn't read as rejection or abandonment

Has a life outside the relationship, work, hobbies, friends, and doesn't resent a partner having one too

Uses the relationship as a genuine secure base, leaning on his partner in distress while also encouraging her growth and autonomy

Comfortable being fully known by one person, rather than needing many people's attention to feel adequate

Self-worth and inner world

Holds a positive view of both himself and the people close to him, at the same time

Validates his own feelings internally, without needing constant external confirmation to trust what he's feeling

Holds a stable sense of self-worth that doesn't swing wildly with wins or losses

Doesn't feel threatened by other people's success, he can admire or celebrate rather than compare and diminish

Is curious rather than performative, asks real questions instead of needing to appear like he already knows

Reframes vulnerability as strength, not weakness, though this is ongoing work rather than a fixed trait

Recovers from setbacks by reappraising the situation constructively rather than ruminating or shutting down

Responsibility and reliability

Takes responsibility for his own practical life, money, work, health, without expecting a partner to manage it for him

Seeks support directly and specifically, instead of fishing for reassurance indirectly

Trusts that support will be there when needed, without demanding constant proof of it

References

Afifi, T., Haughton, C., & Parrish, C. (2021). Relational load: Implications for executive functioning, mental health, and feelings of unity in romantic relationships. Communication Monographs, 88, 506-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2021.1896015

Asadpour, E., Sharei, A., & Salmani, A. (2025). Premarital intervention based on attachment and differentiation improves communication and conflict management in Iranian couples. Scientific Reports, 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-15051-3

Bakermans-Kranenburg, M., Dagan, O., Cárcamo, R. A., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2024). Celebrating more than 26,000 adult attachment interviews: Mapping the main adult attachment classifications on personal, social, and clinical status. Attachment & Human Development, 27, 191-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2024.2422045

Bennett, S., Robb, K. A., Zortea, T. C., Dickson, A., Richardson, C., & O'Connor, R. (2023). Male suicide risk and recovery factors: A systematic review and qualitative metasynthesis of two decades of research. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000397

Blanc, J.-V., Burdairon, J.-D., Malandain, L., Ferreri, F., Mouchabac, S., & Adrien, V. (2023). Attachment and mental health of men having sex with men engaging in chemsex: Is substance abuse only the tip of the iceberg? Journal of Homosexuality, 71, 2875-2894. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2023.2266086

Boldt, L. J., Goffin, K., & Kochanska, G. (2020). The significance of early parent-child attachment for emerging regulation: A longitudinal investigation of processes and mechanisms from toddler age to preadolescence. Developmental Psychology, 56, 431-443. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000862

Bröning, S. (2025). The role of autonomy in multi-partnered relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 54, 2429-2444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-025-03202-6

Burgkart, P. L., Vuzic, X. D., Fuchshuber, J., & Unterrainer, H. (2022). Attachment styles, personality organization, and substance use as predictors of emotion regulation strategies "suppression" and "reappraisal" in young adults. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.786045

Camacho-Ruiz, J. A., Galvez-Sánchez, C. M., & Limiñana-Gras, R. M. (2026). A narrative review of men's mental health: The role of stigma and gender-differentiated socialization. Behavioral Sciences, 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs16020262

Capute, C., Quigley, L., & Bate, J. (2024). The influence of attachment style on support and feedback seeking and depression severity among mothers during the COVID-19 pandemic. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12458

Chen, X. (2026). Synchronized and asynchronous role strategies in emerging adulthood: Familial and gendered influences on Chinese international students' career-romance prioritization. Emerging Adulthood, 14, 389-402. https://doi.org/10.1177/21676968261417722

Chursina, A. (2023). The impact of romantic attachment styles on jealousy in young adults. Psychology in Russia, 16, 222-232. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2023.0315

Ciocca, G., Rossi, R., Collazzoni, A., Gorea, F., Vallaj, B., Stratta, P., Longo, L., Limoncin, E., Mollaioli, D., Gibertoni, D., Santarnecchi, E., Pacitti, F., Niolu, C., Siracusano, A., Jannini, E., & Di Lorenzo, G. (2020). The impact of attachment styles and defense mechanisms on psychological distress in a non-clinical young adult sample: A path analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 273, 384-390. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20055608

Comte, A., Szymańska, M., Monnin, J., Moulin, T., Nezelof, S., Magnin, É., Jardri, R., & Vulliez-Coady, L. (2024). Neural correlates of distress and comfort in individuals with avoidant, anxious and secure attachment style: An fMRI study. Attachment & Human Development, 26, 423-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2024.2384393

Croft, A., Atkinson, C., & May, A. M. (2021). Promoting gender equality by supporting men's emotional flexibility. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8, 42-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732220984491

Delgado, B., Amor, P. J., Domínguez-Sánchez, F., & Holgado-Tello, F. P. (2023). Relationship between adult attachment and cognitive emotional regulation style in women and men. Scientific Reports, 13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35250-0

Di Bianca, M., & Mahalik, J. (2022). A relational-cultural framework for promoting healthy masculinities. American Psychologist, 77(3), 321-332. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000929

Domic-Siede, M., Guzmán-González, M., Sánchez-Corzo, A., Álvarez, X., Araya, V., Espinoza, C., Zenis, K., & Marín-Medina, J. (2024). Emotion regulation unveiled through the categorical lens of attachment. BMC Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01748-z

Domic-Siede, M., Guzmán-González, M., Ortiz, R., Hernández, S., & Carvallo, C. (2025). Phase-synchronized brain connectivity during emotion regulation: Attachment as a moderator. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 20. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaf069

Dugan, K. A., Fraley, R. C., Gillath, O., & Deboeck, P. (2022). Changes in global and relationship-specific attachment working models. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39, 3015-3043. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211051408

Durón Delfín, F., & Leach, R. (2021). "Gambling with my cards face up": Vulnerability as a risky act among men. The Journal of Men's Studies, 30, 174-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/10608265211047958

Egozi, S., Talia, A., Wiseman, H., & Tishby, O. (2023). The experience of closeness and distance in the therapeutic relationship of patients with different attachment classifications: An exploration of prototypical cases. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1029783

Elliott, K., Roberts, S., Ralph, B., Robards, B., & Savic, M. (2022). Understanding autonomy and relationality in men's lives. The British Journal of Sociology, 73, 571-586. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12947

Fraley, R. C., Gillath, O., & Deboeck, P. (2020). Do life events lead to enduring changes in adult attachment styles? A naturalistic longitudinal investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000326

Germani, A., Delvecchio, E., Li, J.-B., & Mazzeschi, C. (2020). Protective factors for depressive symptoms in emerging adulthood. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12616

Gillath, O., Karantzas, G., Romano, D., & Karantzas, K. M. (2022). Attachment security priming: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 26, 183-241. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211054592

Girme, Y. U., Jones, R. E., Fleck, C., Simpson, J., & Overall, N. (2020). Infants' attachment insecurity predicts attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies in adulthood. Emotion, 21, 260-272. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000721

Gough, B., Robertson, S., & Luck, H. (2021). Engendered expressions of anxiety: Men's emotional communications with women and other men. Frontiers in Sociology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.697356

Hoegler, S., Vetterly, S., & Cummings, E. (2023). Evaluation of a couple- and family-based intervention: Implications for the fathering vulnerability hypothesis. Parenting, 24, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2023.2254344

Hoenicka, M. A. K., López-De-La-Nieta, O., Martínez Rubio, J. M., Shinohara, K., Neoh, M., Dimitriou, D., Esposito, G., & Iandolo, G. (2022). Parental bonding in retrospect and adult attachment style: A comparative study between Spanish, Italian and Japanese cultures. PLOS ONE, 17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278185

Horne, S. J., Liu, S., & Doorn, A.-V. K. (2024). The role of therapists' attachment and introject in their treatment process and outcome: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 31(5), e3043. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.3043

Huang, M., & Wu, E. Z. (2024). The associations between self-compassion and adult attachment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 42, 681-713. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075241265766

Jakubiak, B. K., Fuentes, J. D., & Feeney, B. (2023). Perceptions of oneself and one's spouse following a stressor discussion predicting attachment insecurity over one year. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40, 3195-3219. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075231170145

Junkins, E. J., Kadel, B. E., & Derringer, J. (2025). Parental and partner attachment working models in romantic relationships of nonbinary adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 42, 1178-1198. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075251316318

Justo-Núñez, M., Morris, L., & Berry, K. (2022). Self-report measures of secure attachment in adulthood: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2756

Kerekes, N., Bador, K., Smedeby, C., Hansen, L., Lundström, S., & Eriksson, M. (2025). Attachment styles and sense of coherence as indicators of treatment adherence and completion among individuals with substance use disorder. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13722-025-00578-7

Kim, J. J., Kent, K. M., Cunnington, R., Gilbert, P., & Kirby, J. (2020). Attachment styles modulate neural markers of threat and imagery when engaging in self-criticism. Scientific Reports, 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70772-x

Konečná, L., Lisá, E., & Čiriková, V. (2026). The role of leadership in shaping psychological safety: A qualitative study from Slovakia. Scientific Reports, 16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-38706-1

Kural, A. I., & Kovács, M. (2022). The role of anxious attachment in the continuation of abusive relationships: The potential for strengthening a secure attachment schema as a tool of empowerment. Acta Psychologica, 225, 103537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103537

Kundi, Y., & Badar, K. (2021). Interpersonal conflict and counterproductive work behavior: The moderating roles of emotional intelligence and gender. International Journal of Conflict Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma-10-2020-0179

Laczkovics, C., Fonzo, G., Bendixsen, B., Shpigel, E., Lee, I. A., Skala, K., Prunas, A., Gross, J., Steiner, H., & Huemer, J. (2020). Defense mechanism is predicted by attachment and mediates the maladaptive influence of insecure attachment on adolescent mental health. Current Psychology, 39, 1388-1396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9839-1

Lathren, C. R., Rao, S. S., Park, J., & Bluth, K. (2021). Self-compassion and current close interpersonal relationships: A scoping literature review. Mindfulness, 12, 1078-1093. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01566-5

Li, D., Carnelley, K., & Rowe, A. (2022). Insecure attachment orientation in adults and children and negative attribution bias: A meta-analysis. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 49, 1679-1694. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221117690

Maalouf, E., Salameh, P., Haddad, C., Sacre, H., Hallit, S., & Obeid, S. (2022). Attachment styles and their association with aggression, hostility, and anger in Lebanese adolescents: A national study. BMC Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-022-00813-9

Mansour, K. A., Greenwood, C. J., Francis, L. M., Misuraca, G., Marabel-Whitburn, K., Olsson, C. A., & Macdonald, J. (2025). The value of social networks for men: Concurrent and prospective associations with psychological wellbeing. BMC Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02467-9

Metts, A., Zinbarg, R., Nusslock, R., Tabak, B. A., & Craske, M. (2024). Longitudinal associations among adult attachment orientations, emotion regulation tendencies, and transdiagnostic anxiety and depression symptoms in young adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 41, 1457-1480. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075231225254

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. (2020). Broaden-and-build effects of contextually boosting the sense of attachment security in adulthood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29, 22-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419885997

Momeni, K., Amani, R., Janjani, P., Majzoobi, M., Forstmeier, S., & Nosrati, P. (2022). Attachment styles and happiness in the elderly: The mediating role of reminiscence styles. BMC Geriatrics, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-022-03053-z

Mosannenzadeh, F., Luijten, M., Maciejewski, D. F., Wiewel, G. V., & Karremans, J. (2024). Adult attachment and emotion regulation flexibility in romantic relationships. Behavioral Sciences, 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090758

Murray-Perdue, S. A., Nowak, A. L., O'Neill, M., Wang, L., Cummings, E. M., & Braungart-Rieker, J. (2023). Postpartum romantic attachment and constructiveness: The protective effects of a conflict communication intervention for parents' relationship functioning over one year. Developmental Science, e13470. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13470

Muzi, S., Steele, H., & Pace, C. (2026). Twenty years of attachment research with the Friends and Family Interview: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 33. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.70203

Neilson, E. C., & Maitland, D. W. M. (2025). Masculinity, social connection, and loneliness: A contextual behavioral science approach to men's social relationships and intimacy. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2025.100892

Obeldobel, C. A., Brumariu, L. E., & Kerns, K. A. (2023). Parent-child attachment and dynamic emotion regulation: A systematic review. Emotion Review, 15, 28-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739221136895

Oliffe, J. (2023). Connecting masculinities to men's illness vulnerabilities and resilience. Qualitative Health Research, 33, 1322-1332. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323231198967

Olekalns, M., & Caza, B. (2024). Resetting relationship trajectories: A reconceptualization of the relationship repair process. Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2769

Olufowote, R. D. A., Fife, S. T., Schleiden, C., & Whiting, J. (2020). How can I become more secure? A grounded theory of earning secure attachment. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12409

Pepping, C., Girme, Y. U., Cronin, T., & MacDonald, G. (2024). Diversity in singlehood experiences: Testing an attachment theory model of sub-groups of singles. Journal of Personality, 93, 275-295. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12929

Peters, B. J., Overall, N., Gresham, A. M., Tudder, A., Chang, V. T., Reis, H. T., & Jamieson, J. P. (2024). Examining dyadic stress appraisal processes within romantic relationships from a challenge and threat perspective. Affective Science, 5, 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-024-00235-3

Platts, L., Norbrian, A. A., & Frick, M. (2022). Attachment in older adults is stably associated with health and quality of life: Findings from a 14-year follow-up of the Whitehall II study. Aging & Mental Health, 27, 1832-1842. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2022.2148157

Rogier, G., Muzi, S., Morganti, W., & Pace, C. (2023). Self-criticism and attachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112359

Roth, A. R. (2021). Social autonomy among married men and women. Socius, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231211043630

Rouvroye, L., Van Dalen, H., Henkens, K., & Schippers, J. (2023). A distaste for insecurity: Job preferences of young people in the transition to adulthood. European Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcad041

Rutt, K., DeVos, L., Gala, K., Njama, T., Fosi, M., Mhaleni, Z., Daniels, J., & Medina-Marino, A. (2026). Navigating masculinities: An exploration of peer coaching, health behaviors, and mortality risks among men in tuberculosis and HIV interventions in South Africa. American Journal of Men's Health, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/15579883261430886

Siede, M. D., Sánchez-Corzo, A., & Guzmán-González, M. (2024). Brain oscillations during emotion regulation and the two-dimensional model of adult attachment. Biological Psychology, 108793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2024.108793

Smoliak, O., LaMarre, A., Rice, C. M., Tseliou, E., LeCouteur, A., Myers, M., Vesely, L., Briscoe, C., Adddison, M., & Velikonja, L. (2021). The politics of vulnerable masculinity in couple therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12530

Sommantico, M., Iorio, I., Lacatena, M., & Parrello, S. (2021). Adult attachment, differentiation of self, and relationship satisfaction in lesbians and gay men. Contemporary Family Therapy, 43, 154-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-020-09563-5

Sood, M., Carnelley, K., & Newman-Taylor, K. (2022). How does insecure attachment lead to paranoia? A systematic critical review of cognitive, affective, and behavioural mechanisms. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 781-815. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12361

Springstein, T., Hamerling-Potts, K. K., Landa, I., & English, T. (2022). Adult attachment and interpersonal emotion regulation motives in daily life. Emotion. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001169

Tammilehto, J., Bosmans, G., Kuppens, P., Flykt, M., Peltonen, K., Kerns, K. A., & Lindblom, J. (2022). Dynamics of attachment and emotion regulation in daily life: Uni- and bidirectional associations. Cognition and Emotion, 36, 1109-1131. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2022.2081534

Turtonen, O., Saarinen, A., Nummenmaa, L., Tuominen, L., Tikka, M., Armio, R., Hautamäki, A., Laurikainen, H., Raitakari, O., Keltikangas-Järvinen, L., & Hietala, J. (2020). Adult attachment system links with brain mu opioid receptor availability in vivo. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2020.10.013

Van Schie, C. C., Jarman, H. L., Reis, S., & Grenyer, B. (2021). Narcissistic traits in young people and how experiencing shame relates to current attachment challenges. BMC Psychiatry, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03249-4

Vickery, A. (2021). Men's help-seeking for distress: Navigating varied pathways and practices. Frontiers in Sociology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.724843

Wang, M. L., Narcisse, M., Togher, K., & McElfish, P. (2024). Job flexibility, job security, and mental health among US working adults. JAMA Network Open, 7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.3439

Yang, Q., Sun, L., Liu, Y., Wu, X., Zheng, M., & Deng, M. (2025). Electrocortical modulation of reappraisal and suppression in avoidant and secure attachment: A preliminary investigation in romantic conflict. International Journal of Psychology, 60(6), e70119. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.70119

Yastıbaş-Kaçar, C., Araz, A., Güngör, D., & Dirik, G. (2025). Adult attachment profiles and correlates of relationship quality and emotional expression styles in Turkish married individuals. Current Psychology, 44, 12491-12504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-08043-z

Zhang, X., Li, J., Xie, F., Chen, X., Xu, W., & Hudson, N. (2022). The relationship between adult attachment and mental health: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(5), 1089-1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000437