Attachment anxiety shapes how people handle emotional conflict, and brief reminders of security or threat can shift that balance, according to research published in Cognition & Emotion.

Everyday life requires us to focus on what matters while ignoring emotionally distracting information; this is known as emotional conflict control. Previous research shows that people differ in how well they manage this kind of emotional interference, and attachment theory suggests that these differences may stem from how secure or insecure people feel in close relationships. Individuals with anxious attachment, for example, tend to be highly sensitive to emotional cues, whereas avoidantly attached individuals often suppress emotional information in favor of control.

Drawing on the functional neuro-anatomical model of attachment, Mengke Zhang and colleagues conducted two experiments to examine how attachment styles and short-term attachment “priming” experiences relate to emotional conflict control.

In Experiment 1, 225 Chinese undergraduate students completed the Experiences in Close Relationships questionnaire, which assesses two core dimensions of adult attachment, including attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. Participants then completed an emotional face-word Stroop task that required them to identify whether a face displayed a happy or fearful expression while ignoring a word superimposed on the face.

These words varied in emotional valence and in whether they were related to close relationships, allowing the task to generate emotional conflict when facial expressions and words conveyed mismatched emotional information.

Performance on the Stroop task was used to index emotional interference, with slower or less accurate responses on emotionally incongruent trials indicating greater difficulty resolving conflict between emotional and task-relevant information.

The second experiment extended this approach by examining situational influences on emotional conflict control. A separate sample of 185 undergraduates first completed the same attachment questionnaire and baseline mood ratings, then completed a brief writing-based priming task. Participants were randomly assigned to recall either a supportive attachment-related experience (attachment security priming), a distressing attachment-related experience (attachment threat priming), or a neutral interpersonal memory.

Following the priming manipulation, participants reported their momentary sense of attachment security or insecurity as well as changes in positive and negative emotions. They also completed a modified version of the emotional face-word Stroop task using attachment-related words only. This design allowed the researchers to test whether temporary shifts in attachment-related feelings altered emotional conflict control beyond individuals’ baseline attachment styles.

Across both experiments, attachment anxiety consistently emerged as the most important individual difference shaping emotional conflict control.

In the first experiment, individuals higher in attachment anxiety showed greater emotional interference on the Stroop task, particularly when distracting words were positive in emotional tone. This pattern suggests that anxiously attached individuals were more likely to have their attention drawn toward emotionally salient information, making it harder to suppress distractions and focus on the task at hand.

Attachment avoidance, in contrast, was not reliably associated with reduced emotional interference, indicating that the emotional demands of the face-word Stroop task may overwhelm avoidant individuals’ typical tendency to disengage from emotional material.

The second experiment showed that attachment security priming successfully increased participants’ immediate sense of attachment security, but it did not lead to uniform improvements in emotional control. Instead, among individuals high in attachment anxiety, greater feelings of security were associated with increased emotional interference, suggesting that security cues may heighten emotional engagement rather than dampen it for those who are chronically sensitive to relationship concerns. For individuals lower in attachment anxiety, security priming had little effect on emotional interference.

Attachment threat priming produced a different pattern. Compared to the neutral condition, threat priming reduced emotional interference overall, indicating improved emotional conflict control. This effect was especially pronounced among individuals low in attachment anxiety, who showed clear reductions in interference following threat cues.

Among individuals high in attachment anxiety, threat priming worked indirectly; increased feelings of attachment insecurity were associated with reduced emotional interference, suggesting that threat cues may shift attention away from emotional evaluation and toward cognitive control in this group.

Of note is that the study relied on undergraduate samples and laboratory-based tasks, which may limit how well the findings generalize to other populations or to real-world emotional challenges.

The research “Attachment styles and attachment (in)security priming in relation to emotional conflict control,” was authored by Mengke Zhang, Song Li, Xinyi Liu, Qingting Tang, Qing Li, and Xu Chen.