How Can Therapists Assess Polysecure Attachment In Clients?

for me it always starts with creating a really nonjudgmental space where people can talk about the shape of their relationships without feeling like they're being evaluated. I usually open with an intake that mixes direct questions about attachment history (who they relied on as a kid, patterns of being soothed or left alone) with concrete relationship mapping: timelines, who does what in each relationship, who is the secure base and who tends to act as the alarm. I pair that narrative work with standardized tools like the Experiences in Close Relationships questionnaire to get anxiety/avoidance scores, and sometimes an Adult Attachment Interview-style exploration to see how coherently someone talks about attachment experiences.

After that, I shift toward present-day functioning: how clients regulate when partners are upset, how they negotiate boundaries, and how they repair after ruptures. For folks practicing consensual nonmonogamy, I pay attention to how consent, negotiation, and metamour relationships factor into security—are agreements explicit, renegotiable, and honored? I screen for trauma, dissociation, and PTSD symptoms, because unresolved trauma can mimic or mask attachment dynamics. I also invite partner sessions when appropriate (with consent) to observe interaction patterns live—how people listen, apologize, and re-establish safety. Reading 'Polysecure' helped me translate polyamory-specific markers into clinical language, and I often recommend 'Attached' for clients who want a straightforward primer. Ultimately, assessing polysecure attachment is both measurement and relationship work: it’s part clinical detective work, part co-creating safer relational experiments. I find it deeply rewarding to watch people build habits that actually feel like home.

I like to think of assessment as scanning from multiple angles at once: history, current behavior, and the relational ecosystem. In the history window I collect stories—who soothed them, times they felt abandoned or soothed, early caregiver responsiveness. Those stories give anchors for later patterns. For current behavior, I look for evidential markers of security: consistent return after rupture, ability to ask for needs without collapsing, and calm curiosity about partners' inner lives. When those are present across more than one relationship, that's a strong signal toward a polysecure style.

The ecosystem scan examines communication rituals, boundary-setting habits, and the social scaffolding around the person—friends, metamours, and community norms. I also use brief validated measures (attachment anxiety/avoidance scales), a trauma checklist, and sometimes a mentalization assessment to judge reflective capacity. Importantly, I avoid pathologizing consensual nonmonogamy; instead I assess consent, capacity to negotiate, and whether relationships function as secure bases. If there’s confusion, we sometimes do behavioral experiments—repair rehearsals, boundary-negotiation role plays, or journaling prompts—to see how quickly and reliably someone returns to baseline after relational stress. That active approach, combined with careful screening for safety and coercion, helps me form a grounded clinical picture. It’s gratifying when assessments turn into concrete steps clients can use to feel steadier in their connections.

People often assume polysecure is just another label, but I approach assessment like building a layered portrait: psychometric measures, narrative coherence, observed interaction, and contextual factors all sit on top of each other. I’ll use something like the ECR-R to chart anxiety/avoidance then test those scores against stories — does the person’s wording about attachment match their reported behaviors? If there’s discrepancy, it signals either limited self-awareness or a coping strategy.

I weigh power dynamics and consent heavily; someone can score low on anxiety but still be enmeshed in coercive arrangements, so safety and autonomy checks are part of the assessment. Cultural background, previous trauma, and community norms shape what secure relating looks like, so I’m careful not to impose a single standard. I also monitor my own reactions — if I feel unusually protective or irritated, that’s data about transference and countertransference that I reflect on or consult about.

Ultimately, assessment is iterative: initial measures, relational mapping, in-session experiments, and follow-up to see if skills stick. I like that this approach respects both measurable traits and the messy human context — it feels thorough and human at once.

When someone asks how to tell if a client is polysecure, I zoom into real-world patterns rather than labels. Polysecure shows up as the ability to reliably soothe and be soothed across multiple relationships, so I start with stories: ask about a recent rupture and watch how the person describes repair. Do they take responsibility, use specific language about needs and boundaries, and hold steadiness when a partner is upset? Those narrative clues often beat a checklist.

I also do quick, practical checks: have them map their relationships (a genogram-style polycule), list agreements and how they're negotiated, and report on bodily responses to jealousy — sweating, rapid speech, dissociation. I use short questionnaires like ECR-R to quantify avoidance and anxiety and pair that with a reflective task (e.g., describe why a metamour might be upset). Skill-based observations matter: can they tolerate hearing a partner express attraction to someone else without escalating? Can they state a boundary and accept a "no"? If the answers are mostly yes, that's promising.

At the same time I watch for red flags: secrecy, pressure to comp a partner into comfort, or repeated boundary violations. I tie everything back to psychoeducation — sometimes people just lack vocabulary for compersion or secure repair, and teaching those skills moves them a lot. Practical homework (journaling reactions, practicing non-defensive listening) helps reveal durable change. Personally, I love the clarity that comes when someone realizes their patterns and chooses new practices — it's quietly thrilling.

In practice, assessing polysecure attachment often looks like mapping behavioral patterns and testing them gently in session: who provides comfort, who’s relied upon for exploration, and how repair happens after a rupture. I start with a conversational life map—key relationships, attachment moments, and current agreements—then layer in brief questionnaires for anxiety and avoidance so I have some objective anchors. I pay special attention to negotiation skills (how they ask for needs), boundary clarity, and response to jealousy: polysecure folks typically show capacity to regulate, reflect, and recalibrate agreements rather than panic or withdraw. I also screen for trauma symptoms because past abuse or complex trauma can produce attachment behaviors that resemble insecurity.

Beyond assessments, I use experiments—communication scripts, safe role-plays, and partner-in-session observations—to see how quickly trust is re-established. Observing repair sequences in real time tells me more than any single form. Ultimately, the goal is to translate assessment into skills-building: strengthening secure bases, improving mentalization, and bolstering consensual negotiation. It’s always satisfying to see clients leave a session with one practical step they can try and actually feel the difference.

I tend to think of assessing polysecure attachment as both art and science — you need structured tools but also a sensitive ear for relational rhythms. First, I anchor the conversation in an attachment framework: I use measures like the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR-R) or the ECR-Relationship Structures (ECR-RS) to get baseline scores for anxiety and avoidance across different partners. I also like to bring in questions from the Adult Attachment Interview tradition — not necessarily the full AAI, but AAI-style prompts that explore early caregiving, narrative coherence, and shifts in internal working models. Mentioning resources like 'Polysecure' helps normalize the language for clients and gives us a shared vocabulary.

Second, I use concrete, relational mapping. Have the person draw their polycule, note roles (primary, secondary, non-hierarchical), and annotate patterns: who calms them, who triggers old wounds, what repair looks like in each relationship. Observing in-session interactions with partners or metamours can be revealing: can they maintain affect tolerance when jealousy comes up? Do they seek repair or withdraw? I also integrate reflective functioning assessments — how well can they mentalize another partner’s perspective? That’s a huge indicator of polysecure capacity.

Finally, assessment is ongoing. I combine self-report, narrative, behavioral experiments (like small boundary negotiations or compersion practices), and safety screens for coercion or non-consensual dynamics. Trauma history, minority stress, and cultural context get folded into the formulation because secure attachment looks different across communities. In short, I gather psychometrics, narrative history, relational maps, and observed behavior to build a living picture — and I always leave room for growth, curiosity, and messy human stuff that can’t be reduced to a score. I feel energized when clients discover concrete steps toward more secure relating.