Key points

• Neurodivergent adults often experience higher rates of insecure attachment.
• They may have vulnerabilities to responding to relational red flags.
• Neuro‑affirming understanding, predictability, and clear communication are essential.

According to Psychology Today, attachment is the “emotional bond that forms between infant and caregiver, and it is how the helpless infant gets primary needs met.” Attachment develops through repeated interactions between caregivers and children and can be understood as a match or mismatch between a child’s emotional and physical needs and the responsiveness of their environment.

When we receive what our nervous system craves—comfort, acceptance, predictability, or control—we experience safety. But when there is a mismatch between our needs and the environment’s responsiveness, distress can arise, along with fears of abandonment or rejection. This can occur even in the context of parental loving intentions and best efforts. These early patterns shape how individuals later feel and behave within relationships.

Research indicates that, generally, neurodivergent adults report higher levels of insecure attachment when assessed with instruments designed for neurotypical individuals (e.g., Al-Yagon et al., 2020; Sonfelianu et al., 2025). Some authors specifically note elevated anxious attachment (Devlin, 2014), an attachment style linked to lower relationship quality (e.g., Knies et al., 2020), which is often characterized by increased vulnerability to worries about rejection or abandonment (Brennan, 1998). Meanwhile, avoidant attachment reflects discomfort with closeness and reliance on others (Brennan, 1998).

The specific reasons for these patterns are still unclear. One possibility is that many neurodivergent adults grew up in environments where their neurodivergent behavioral characteristics were met with a limited understanding of the internal experiences that drive those behaviors. This might be linked to the double empathy challenge (Milton, 2012), which describes how two people can find it difficult to accurately understand each other’s mental states.

For instance, behaviors such as procrastination, emotional outbursts, forgetfulness, impulsivity, or distractibility may become more the focus of caregiver and educator responses than the less visible internal struggles beneath those behaviors—such as cognitive, emotional, and sensory overload, and the effort of self‑regulation (which may be met with less awareness and understanding). This is especially relevant given higher rates of alexithymia (difficulties identifying and expressing inner experience) in neurodivergent individuals (Donfrancesco et al., 2013; Kinnaird et al., 2019).

Mira’s Story

To illustrate these ideas, I share the story of Mira, a fictional neurodivergent woman whose experiences reflect vulnerabilities often seen in therapeutic work with neurodivergent clients, including my own. Mira is not based on any real person; her journey reflects and honors the strengths and struggles of many neurodivergent individuals who sometimes feel “too much” while navigating love, attachment, and intimacy.

Mira first sought therapy many years after a painful breakup with Alex. When she met him two years earlier, she felt an immediate sense of warmth and sincerity. The early stages of their relationship felt “wonderful,” “easy,” and “safe.” For someone who had spent much of her life feeling different, Alex’s acceptance held enormous emotional significance. In hindsight, she realized that this early sense of belonging—along with the initial high of a new relationship—made it much harder to let go later when the relationship began to cause pain.

Following the relationship’s honeymoon phase, certain dynamics began to emerge. Alex withdrew during conflict, avoided emotional conversations, and shifted blame away from his behavior and onto Mira’s reactions. His behavior left Mira confused and increasingly distressed. For Mira, who experienced rejection sensitivity—an intense emotional and physical reaction to real or perceived criticism, rooted in neurobiological differences in emotional regulation and shaped over time by repeated experiences of correction and misunderstanding (Dodson et al., 2024; Rowney-Smith et al., 2026)—Alex’s withdrawal and blame‑shifting left her overwhelmed and desperate for reassurance.

• What Is Neurodiversity?
• Take our ADHD Test
• Find a therapist near me

During these moments, Mira described her mind as “foggy” and her thinking as “not clear.” Despite sensing that something felt wrong, it was difficult for her to recognize red flags. Research supports this: Emotional distress can significantly impair ADHD executive functioning (Barkley, 2015), making it harder to plan, reflect, or maintain perspective during relationship conflict. This created a destructive cycle: Alex’s withdrawal triggered distress in Mira, her executive functioning shut down, she pursued him for reassurance, and he interpreted her distress as “too much,” withdrawing even further.

Another layer of complexity came from differences in ADHD‑related dopamine dysregulation. Alex’s inconsistent affection created intermittent reinforcement, one of the strongest behavioral conditioning patterns, with ADHD brains being particularly sensitive to it (Luman et al., 2010).** **Even small gestures from Alex—a message, a moment of warmth, a promise to reconnect—felt disproportionately rewarding, overshadowing Mira’s awareness of the broader pattern of emotional neglect.

Mira also faced challenges with hyperfocus, which in many contexts is a strength for neurodiverse individuals (Sedgwick et al., 2019). Once her attention was locked onto Alex, she found it nearly impossible to redirect. Years after their breakup, she still felt preoccupied, confused, and unable to make sense of what had happened.

Mira’s difficulty interpreting social cues and maintaining emotional perspective made her more vulnerable to Alex’s blame‑shifting. When he insisted that the problem was her being “upset,” she doubted her own perceptions, given her history of masking, people‑pleasing, and compensating for misunderstood differences. Mira’s perfectionistic tendencies and lifelong efforts to compensate for her differences made her particularly susceptible to over‑functioning in the relationship.

A New Dawn: Neuro-affirming Acceptance That Helped Mira Heal

Mira felt emotions intensely, processed relationships deeply, and craved authenticity. Mira found ambiguity challenging, tended to internalize criticism, and experienced heightened distress during conflict. However, when her needs were met with clarity, acceptance, and compassion, her subsequent relationships were stable, loyal, intimate, and fulfilling, whereas Alex’s responses to her characteristics involved criticism, avoidance, or inconsistency.

Therapy became the place where Mira broadened her understanding of her nervous system, starting with expanding her language for her experiences. She began to recognize that her experiences held strengths like passion, sensitivity, and authenticity. As she became more attuned to her inner world, she gained clarity about what she needed from relationships: validation, predictability, communication, and openness about her sensory needs.

Current research on neuro‑affirming approaches for neurodiverse couples remains limited (Stafford, 2023). Given the uniqueness of individuals within every neurodiverse couple, these broad suggestions can be considered as very general guidance. Practices that create predictability—such as consistent routines, clear expectations, and reliable follow‑through—can foster emotional safety, reduce anxiety, and ease cognitive load. Psychoeducation and open conversations about sensory needs may lessen irritability and prevent misunderstandings. Likewise, communication that is direct and concrete, with minimal sarcasm or hidden meanings, supports clarity and reduces the pressure to “read between the lines.”

Attachment is not a fixed destiny. It begins in early relationships but continues to evolve as later experiences shape our sense of safety and belonging. For many neurodivergent children, this journey includes memories of feeling “too much,” misunderstood, or not fully accepted. Mira’s story highlights how transformative it can be when partners intentionally build bridges of understanding—offering attuned, validating, and predictable support that strengthens relational security and fulfilment, while celebrating neurodivergent qualities.

References

Al-Yagon, M., Lachmi, M., & Shalev, L. (2020). Coping strategies among adults with ADHD: The mediational role of attachment relationship patterns. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 102, 103657.

Barkley, R. A. (2015). Emotional dysregulation is a core component of ADHD. Journal of ADHD and Related Disorders, 3(1), 5–37.

Brennan KA, Clark CL, Shaver PR. Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In: Simpson JA, Rholes WS, editors. Attachment theory and close relationships. Guilford Press; New York, NY, USA: 1998. pp. 46–76.

Devlin, E (2014). The association between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and attachment in an adult community sample. University Of Tasmania. Thesis. https://doi.org/10.25959/23238461.v1

Dodson, William & Modestino, Edward & Ceritoğlu, Handan & Zayed, Basel & Modestino, Edward & Laboratory, Behavior. (2024). Rejection Sensitivity Dysphoria in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Case Series. Acta Scientific Neurology. 7. 23-30. 10.31080/ASNE.2024.07.0762.

Donfrancesco, R., Di Trani, M., Gregori, P., Auguanno, G., Melegari, M. G., Zaninotto, S., & Luby, J. (2013). Attention‑deficit/hyperactivity disorder and alexithymia: A pilot study. ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders, 5, 361–367.

Kinnaird, E., Stewart, C., & Tchanturia, K. (2019). Investigating alexithymia in autism: A systematic review and meta‑analysis. European Psychiatry, 55, 80–89.

Knies, K., Bodalski, E. A., & Flory, K. (2021). Romantic relationships in adults with ADHD: The effect of partner attachment style on relationship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(1), 42-64.

Luman, M., Tripp, G., & Scheres, A. (2010). Identifying the neurobiology of altered reinforcement sensitivity in ADHD: a review and research agenda. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(5), 744-754.

Milton, D. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: the ‘double empathy problem’. Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887.

Müller, K., Jensen, R., & Patel, S. (2024). Associations between ADHD symptoms and rejection sensitivity in college students. Journal of Clinical Psychology and Neurodevelopment, 12(4), 233–249.

Rowney-Smith, L., Carter, J., & Hughes, M. (2026). The lived experience of rejection sensitivity in ADHD: A qualitative exploration. Journal of Attention and Emotion, 18(2), 145–162.

Sedgwick, JA, Merwood, A & Asherson, P 2019, ‘The positive aspects of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a qualitative investigation of successful adults with ADHD’, Attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 241–253.

Shaw, P., Stringaris, A., Nigg, J., & Leibenluft, E. (2014). Emotion dysregulation in attention‑deficit/hyperactivity disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(3), 276–293.

Soler-Gutiérrez, A. M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Mayas, J. (2023). Evidence of emotion dysregulation as a core symptom of adult ADHD: A systematic review. Plos one, 18(1), e0280131.

Sonfelianu, A., González-Sala, F., & Lacomba-Trejo, L. (2025). Exploring Attachment in Adults With Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review. Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría, 53(4), 813.

Stafford, A. (2023). Relationship-counselling recommendations for partnerships involving autistic adults: A scoping review. Psychotherapy and Counselling Journal of Australia, 11(1).