An Attachment-Based Framework for Understanding Response to Influence Attempts
This framework addresses a practical challenge in child protection: how to improve safety for young people aged 16 and over who are subject to Child Protection Plans whilst exercising significant autonomy in their own lives. Drawing on Professor Antonia Bifulco's Attachment Style Interview research and Eric Berne's Transactional Analysis model, the framework presents eight recognisable typologies of response to influence attempts, mapped to attachment patterns that shape how individuals recognise, accept, and utilise support.
Central to the framework is the recognition that each insecure attachment style originated as a survival strategy and, at mild functioning levels, operates as a genuine adaptive strength. The problem emerges not from the pattern itself but from the functioning level at which it operates. A functioning spectrum—from mild through moderate to marked—describes how the same attachment style can produce fundamentally different presentations depending on the intensity at which it is currently active. Alongside this, the framework introduces an authenticity dimension: whether a young person is responding to present-moment reality or replaying past patterns activated by current triggers. This distinction, informed by Berne's analysis of ego states and transactional dynamics, determines whether professional engagement can currently connect with the person as they actually are.
The typology is offered as a tool for frontline professionals—a way of reading which approach is likely to be most effective with a particular young person, much as anyone observing animals understands that zebras move as a herd whilst wildebeest only move when the lion is charging. Different young people respond to influence differently; understanding the pattern, the functioning level at which it operates, and whether the response is grounded in present reality enables a more targeted approach to improving safety. Whilst primarily focused on safeguarding young people aged 16 and over on Child Protection Plans, the framework demonstrates patterns that appear across group management, team leadership, and other contexts involving attempts to influence autonomous individuals.
A Note on the Framework's Status:
Before engaging with the typology detail, readers should understand the empirical standing of what follows:
The neurological underpinning of the patterns described here—predictive coding, model construction, and how brains fabricate experience—is explored across the trilogy's first two essays. The Three-Pound Supercomputer (Young, 2025) establishes the computational architecture; Living in a Fabricated World (Young, 2026) traces what that architecture produces when predictive models are built from early experience. Together they show why these patterns behave as they do—why functioning levels determine what a young person can currently engage with, and why no typology assessment can amount to more than a provisional reading.
As of March 2025, there were 49,420 children subject to Child Protection Plans in England (Department for Education, 2025). Of the 402,400 children classified as "in need" across all categories, 27.5% were aged 16 years and over—approximately 110,660 young people (Department for Education, 2025). Whilst precise age-disaggregated data for those specifically on Child Protection Plans is not published in single-year breakdowns, the substantial representation of young people aged 16 and over across children's social care indicates that a significant proportion of child protection planning involves individuals who are exercising considerable autonomy in their own lives.
This age group presents a distinctive challenge for child protection professionals. At 16, young people can legally consent to sexual relationships, live independently with benefits support, work full-time, marry with parental permission, and make many autonomous life choices. Yet they remain "children" under the Children Act 1989 until age 18, and where risk has been identified, they may be subject to Child Protection Plans. The professional question becomes sharper at this age: how do you actually improve safety for someone who is making their own decisions about where they live, who they spend time with, and how they conduct their relationships?
This is not a question about system failure. Frontline professionals working with this population are, in the main, pragmatic and committed. They write plans, hold meetings, maintain relationships, and look for ways to make a difference. The challenge is that the traditional levers of child protection—parental authority, compliance with professional direction, removal or restriction—carry less weight with a 16-year-old who has their own income, their own accommodation, and their own adult relationships. The question shifts from whether to intervene to how to intervene in ways that actually land.
This framework examines specifically this population: young people aged 16 and over who are subject to Child Protection Plans whilst living with significant autonomy. The focus on this age group is deliberate—not because younger children do not also present challenges, nor because all 16+ year olds are equally autonomous, but because this group most clearly illustrates the point at which child protection professionals need to think differently about how they engage in order to improve safety.
The following fictional case study, constructed from common patterns observed across generic frontline practice, illustrates the challenge:
Mia, aged 16, has a Child Protection Plan under the category of Child Sexual Exploitation. She has been in a relationship with Jordan, aged 24, for eight months. Jordan has previous convictions for domestic violence and drug supply. Mia has her own benefits claim, rents a room in Jordan's flat, and works part-time in retail. She attends Core Group meetings, is polite to professionals, but makes clear she loves Jordan and intends to remain in the relationship. Her mother reports having no meaningful influence over Mia's choices. The Social Worker is writing the next CP plan and needs to identify actions that might actually improve Mia's safety.
The professionals in this scenario are not failing. They are facing a genuinely difficult question. Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the child sex offences in sections 9–15 apply to sexual activity with children under 16; at 16, Mia has crossed that statutory threshold. Sections 16–21 raise the effective consent age to 18 where the other person holds a position of trust—defined in section 21 as including teachers, social workers, doctors, and care workers—but Jordan occupies no such role. The sexual activity is not criminal on age-of-consent grounds. The CP plan exists under CSE not because of Mia's age, but because professionals believe the circumstances involve exploitation—a distinction that itself illustrates the tension. Mia is living independently and making her own choices. The traditional child protection toolkit—parental supervision, removal from the relationship, compliance with professional direction—does not readily apply. What approach, given who Mia is and how she responds to the world, might actually make a difference to her safety?
This is the question this framework attempts to help with. Not by pretending the challenge does not exist, but by offering a way of reading the situation that might point toward more effective engagement.
Frontline professionals working with young people aged 16 and over on Child Protection Plans are, in the main, thoughtful and pragmatic. They recognise that the young person in front of them is exercising real autonomy and they adjust their approach accordingly. Plans are written with awareness of what is and is not realistic. Professionals look for the lever that might work—the relationship that carries weight, the consequence that might motivate, the information that might shift thinking.
What the available evidence and practice observation suggest, however, is that the approach most likely to improve safety depends significantly on the individual young person. A one-size-fits-all strategy—whether that is relationship-based engagement, information provision, consequence-focused work, or peer influence—will work well with some young people and have limited effect with others. The 16-year-old who responds to a trusted Youth Worker's gentle challenge is a fundamentally different proposition to the 16-year-old who will only move when reality presses in, or the one who needs to be intellectually convinced before they will consider changing anything.
The following fictional case study, constructed from common patterns observed across generic frontline practice, illustrates this procedural inadequacy:
A strategy meeting is called for Lily, 13, the same afternoon she is found at a 23-year-old's flat. Evidence of exploitation is clear. The professionals present list the actions to be taken: police will investigate; a medical examination is required; a safety plan will be drawn up; removal from the home is considered. Each action is procedurally correct. Together, they create a sense that the professional response is thorough — that something meaningful is being done.
The safety plan is acknowledged, within the meeting itself, as inadequate. Removal is considered and noted as unlikely to succeed. CAMHS declines engagement on grounds of family instability. Each agency is doing what its mandate requires. The activity is genuine and the intentions are sound. But when the professionals look around the table for the approach most likely to actually reach Lily — to connect with how she specifically responds to influence attempts — the question has not been asked. The system has responded with the tools it possesses. Those tools are procedural. They do not include the question of which lever works with this particular young person.
Lily's case is drawn from the fictional ecosystem of The Reality: A Children's Services Case Study (Young, 2025) — Part 1 of the Changing People series — which presents the full picture of what surrounds a strategy meeting like this one: the team carrying the case, the pressures at every level pressing down alongside it, and the other families whose needs compete for the same professional capacity. The two essays are designed to be read alongside one another.
Lily is 13 — younger than the essay's primary focus population, and in principle still within the reach of protective intervention. But she is making decisions outside that protection, driven by the same attachment-based response patterns the typologies describe. Mia provides the cleaner illustration: at 16, her autonomy is legally unambiguous. Lily provides the less clean reality alongside it — and the less clean reality is where most of these cases actually live.
This variation in response is not random. It is shaped by attachment patterns—the ways individuals have learned, through early experience, to relate to others, to process support, and to respond to attempts at influence. Understanding these patterns does not guarantee a positive outcome, but it does offer something valuable: a way of reading which approach is likely to land with this particular young person, and which is likely to be ineffective or even counterproductive.
The challenge sharpens when we consider the range of young people professionals encounter. Some 16-year-olds on CP plans are genuinely responsive to professional relationships—they value the connection, consider the advice, and can be supported toward safer choices. Others are driven by peer dynamics and will shift behaviour when their social world shifts. Others still will not move until consequences press in. And some, at this particular moment in their lives, appear unreachable by any current approach—not because professionals are failing, but because the young person's attachment patterns and current stress levels place effective engagement beyond what any intervention can currently achieve.
Recognising this variation is not defeatism. It is the starting point for more effective practice. If a professional spends months building a relationship with a young person who will only respond to consequences, or repeatedly explains risks to someone who needs to be intellectually convinced rather than emotionally appealed to, the effort is genuine but the approach is mismatched. The young person remains unsafe not because no one cared, but because the wrong lever was being pulled.
This framework proposes that understanding a young person's response pattern—how they are likely to react to different forms of influence—provides a more useful basis for planning than approaches that treat all 16+ year olds as requiring the same strategy. When the traditional levers of child protection carry less weight, the question becomes: what lever does carry weight with this young person? And how do we identify it?
Before introducing the eight-typology framework that structures this essay, it is worth considering what typologies are, why they are useful in professional practice, and what their limitations are. A typology is a classification system that groups observable patterns into recognisable categories. It does not claim to capture every nuance of individual variation, but it provides a shorthand that allows professionals to identify patterns quickly and adjust their approach accordingly.
The most familiar typology in psychology and therapeutic practice is the stress response framework: fight, flight, freeze, and—more recently—fawn. Originally described as simply "fight or flight" by Walter Cannon in the 1920s, this typology was expanded to include "freeze" as researchers recognised that immobilisation was as common a response to threat as action. In recent years, "fawn" has been added to describe the appeasing, people-pleasing response observed particularly in individuals with histories of relational trauma—a pattern where safety is sought through accommodation rather than confrontation or escape.
This evolution demonstrates something important about typologies: they are refined over time as understanding deepens. The original fight-or-flight dichotomy was a genuine insight, but it was incomplete. Adding freeze and fawn did not invalidate the original framework; it made it more useful. The four-category model remains a blunt instrument—it does not capture every variation in how individuals respond to threat—but it is blunt in a way that retains professional value. When a client describes their panic attacks, recognising that they are experiencing a "flight" response provides an immediate conceptual anchor. When someone describes dissociating under stress, identifying this as "freeze" gives both client and practitioner a shared language for what is happening and why.
The value of typologies lies precisely in this: they are accessible, memorable, and applicable. They allow professionals to recognise patterns in real time and adjust their approach without requiring extensive assessment or theoretical expertise. A Social Worker who recognises that a young person is presenting a "fawn" response—agreeing to everything whilst clearly disengaging—can adjust their approach immediately, reducing pressure and creating space for more authentic engagement. The typology does not tell the professional everything they need to know, but it tells them enough to avoid the most obvious missteps.
The eight-typology framework presented in this essay operates on the same principle. It is a tool for pattern recognition, not a comprehensive theory of personality. It maps how young people with different attachment patterns tend to respond to influence attempts, providing frontline professionals with a way of reading which approach is most likely to land. Like fight-flight-freeze-fawn, it is deliberately simplified to make it usable under pressure. And like that stress response typology, it will no doubt be refined, expanded, or reconsidered as evidence accumulates. But as a starting framework—a way of thinking about variation in response to influence—it offers something immediately practical: a method for identifying which lever might actually work with this particular young person.
The attachment patterns that shape autonomous adolescents' responses to influence attempts emerged through psychology's transformation from Freud's drive-based intrapsychic model to empirically grounded relational frameworks. This evolution matters because it demonstrates that what appears as individual "resistance" or "defiance" in safeguarding contexts actually reflects relationship patterns formed through early experience and activated under stress.
Freud had proposed that human behaviour was fundamentally driven by internal forces—the libido's pursuit of pleasure and the resulting conflicts between primitive desires and civilised constraints (Freud, 1923). Early relationships mattered in this schema primarily as sources of gratification or frustration of these innate drives. The first challenge to this drive-based model came from within psychoanalysis itself. Melanie Klein pioneered work with young children and developed object relations theory, emphasising the infant's relationship with "objects"—initially the mother—and proposing that infants develop complex internal representations of these early relationships (Klein, 1932, 1946).
This relational emphasis developed further through the British Object Relations School. Ronald Fairbairn rejected Freud's drive theory entirely, proposing instead that "libido is object-seeking, not pleasure-seeking" (Fairbairn, 1952). Donald Winnicott introduced concepts central to contemporary practice: the "good enough mother," the "holding environment," and the distinction between true self and false self (Winnicott, 1960, 1965). These theorists shifted the conversation from Freud's hydraulic metaphors of managing drives to something more recognisably human: infants seeking connection, caregivers responding with varying sensitivity, and internal structures forming through internalisation of these relationship patterns.
The decisive break from drive theory came through John Bowlby's attachment theory. Bowlby proposed that human infants possess an innate attachment behavioural system, shaped by evolution, where proximity to a protective caregiver meant survival and separation meant danger (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980). This was revolutionary because Bowlby insisted on studying real interactions between real parents and children, integrated insights from evolutionary biology and ethology, and made testable predictions about how variations in early caregiving would produce measurable differences in children's development.
Mary Ainsworth provided empirical validation through the Strange Situation procedure, identifying distinct observable patterns: secure attachment, anxious-avoidant attachment, and anxious-resistant attachment (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Later research by Main and Solomon identified disorganised attachment, characterised by contradictory approach-avoidance behaviours reflecting unresolved caregiver fear or trauma (Main & Solomon, 1986). These weren't theoretical constructs inferred from clinical interpretation—they were observable, measurable, reproducible patterns that predicted later outcomes across social competence, emotion regulation, and even romantic relationships in adulthood (Sroufe et al., 2005).
David Howe, Emeritus Professor at the University of East Anglia, has been instrumental in translating attachment theory into practical social work frameworks over four decades. His work bridges the gap between attachment research and frontline child protection practice, demonstrating how attachment patterns manifest in actual family support contexts and providing assessment models grounded in developmental understanding (Howe, 1995; Howe et al., 1999; Howe, 2005).
Howe's distinctive contribution to the progression of attachment thinking was systematic. Where Ainsworth had identified patterns in infancy and Main and Solomon had added disorganised attachment, Howe traced each style across the entire lifecourse—mapping not only how each pattern presents in childhood but how it develops, transforms, and manifests through adolescence and into adulthood (Howe & Betts, 2023). This lifecourse mapping matters enormously for safeguarding practice with young people aged 16 and over, because the attachment style a young person presents is not the same as the style that was identified in infancy. It has developed. It has adapted to the environments the young person has moved through. Howe showed how Avoidant attachment in childhood becomes Avoidant and Dismissing in adulthood; how Ambivalent becomes Anxious and Preoccupied; how Disorganised and Controlling in childhood—itself a complex presentation involving specific subtypes including compulsive caregiving, compulsive compliance, compulsive self-reliance, and controlling-punitive strategies—becomes Fearful Avoidant in adolescence and adulthood (Howe & Betts, 2023).
Equally significant is Howe's framing of insecure attachment styles as strategies—both defensive and adaptive—rather than simply as pathological responses (Howe & Betts, 2023). This is a crucial distinction. The insecure patterns are not failures of development. They are the best available responses to specific caregiving environments, and they retain adaptive value under the right conditions. This framing connects directly to understanding functioning levels: the same style that represents a genuine adaptive strength at mild functioning can become a defensive survival strategy that dominates all other functioning when stress pushes it toward moderate or marked levels. Howe also emphasised that the internal working models through which attachment operates are not fixed—they are "drafts and revisions," beliefs and expectations that can be updated through subsequent experience (Howe & Betts, 2023). This is not a guarantee that patterns will change, but it is a theoretical and empirical basis for the possibility—and for the idea that consistent, safe, authentic professional engagement might, over time, offer the young person evidence that revises the working model formed in earlier, less safe, conditions.
Howe emphasises that work with children only makes sense when understood as work with parents, families, and the containing community—attachment theory as "an overall framework for thinking about relationships" (Holmes, 1997, cited in Howe et al., 1999). His explicit engagement with the uses and misuses of attachment theory in child protection practice and family courts also provides an important caution: attachment concepts are powerful precisely because they illuminate relational dynamics, and this power is diminished—or becomes harmful—when applied through oversimplification or rigid categorisation that loses sight of the complexity these concepts were designed to capture.
Professor Antonia Bifulco's Attachment Style Interview (ASI) research at Middlesex University extended this empirical tradition into adult functioning, demonstrating through structured interview methodology that childhood attachment patterns shape adult relationships, mental health outcomes, and critically—how individuals recognise, accept, and utilise support (Bifulco & Thomas, 2012; Bifulco et al., 2002a). Where Ainsworth had identified patterns in infants, Bifulco mapped how these patterns manifested in adults seeking to navigate relationships, cope with stress, and respond to offers of care or intervention.
Crucially, Bifulco's ASI framework extends beyond singular attachment styles to recognise Dual Attachment Patterns as a sixth classification — where individuals simultaneously demonstrate characteristics of two attachment styles (Bifulco et al., 2002b). These dual patterns—such as Fearful-Angry or Enmeshed-Withdrawn combinations—reflect the complexity of real-world attachment organisation, particularly in individuals with histories of multiple relationship disruptions, varied care experiences, or complex trauma. This recognition acknowledges that attachment organisation is rarely singular or neat, and that individuals may simultaneously hold contradictory relationship patterns that shape their responses to support and influence attempts.
The evolutionary progression of attachment classification across these theorists is worth pausing on, as it shows how each step built upon and expanded the last:
For young people aged 16 and over in safeguarding contexts, dual attachment patterns may create particularly complex response patterns to professional intervention. An individual might simultaneously desire connection (enmeshed tendency) whilst experiencing profound anxiety when closeness is offered (fearful tendency), or might demonstrate intellectual dismissal of emotional support (angry-dismissive tendency) alongside complete relational shutdown (withdrawn tendency). Understanding these dual patterns becomes crucial for anticipating why certain interventions might trigger contradictory or seemingly incomprehensible responses—and for adjusting approach accordingly.
The professional tension identified earlier—how to find the approach that actually improves safety—becomes sharper when attachment patterns are considered. Young people's attachment patterns may mean that the support being offered, however well intentioned, does not connect with how that individual is able to receive it. A young person with fearful attachment might intellectually understand that a Social Worker's concern represents care, yet simultaneously experience overwhelming anxiety when someone attempts closeness. An angry-dismissive young person might perceive any influence attempt as an attack on autonomy, responding with defensive rejection regardless of the support's merit. A dual fearful-angry pattern might produce oscillation between desire for connection and hostile rejection, creating inconsistency that is difficult to navigate without understanding its origins.
This is precisely why reading the pattern matters. If a professional understands that a young person's rejection of support is driven by angry-dismissive attachment rather than indifference to their own safety, the response can be calibrated accordingly—perhaps offering information without pressure, or respecting autonomy whilst remaining available—rather than simply intensifying an approach that the young person's attachment structure cannot receive.
A critical insight connecting attachment theory to response patterns concerns the relationship between stress and functioning. Both Bowlby's attachment framework and contemporary neuroscience recognise that adaptive functioning depends on manageable stress levels (Schore, 2003; Perry & Winfrey, 2021). When stress is low or well-regulated, individuals can access more sophisticated cognitive processing and maintain secure attachment behaviours. Under high, unmanaged stress, more primitive patterns emerge—what Perry describes as "survival mode" where threat-response systems override higher-order functioning.
For autonomous adolescents involved with safeguarding systems, chronic stress is often the norm rather than exception. Poverty, unstable accommodation, relationship violence, exploitation, substance misuse, and involvement with criminal justice systems create persistent threat states that dysregulate nervous systems designed for episodic rather than chronic activation (Perry & Winfrey, 2021). When a young person appears unable to "engage properly" or "make positive choices," this may reflect not motivational deficit but neurobiological reality—stress-damaged systems cannot access the cognitive and emotional capacities required for the behaviours professionals expect.
Howe's work emphasises this stress-attachment interaction, noting that when a child's life is stressful, their attachment system remains chronically activated, leaving minimal capacity for exploration, play, or learning (Howe, 2024). This is directly relevant to adolescent safeguarding: when attachment systems are constantly triggered by threat (exploitation, violence, housing instability), the young person cannot access the calm states necessary for rational decision-making, future planning, or trusting professional relationships. Stress overwhelms the very capacities intervention assumes.
This stress-regulation dynamic shapes which attachment patterns might be accessible at any given moment. A young person who demonstrates secure attachment characteristics (trusting, relationship-responsive) under low stress conditions might shift toward avoidant or disorganised patterns when stress increases beyond their regulatory capacity. A young person who can learn from consequences at manageable stress levels might become oppositional and rejecting when stress prevents processing experience. A young person requiring intellectual stimulation for engagement might lose all engagement capacity under overwhelming pressure.
Understanding these stress-dependent shifts prevents practitioners from rigidly categorising individuals and highlights why consistency in professional response matters so profoundly. If stress determines which attachment patterns activate, and therefore which typology manifests, then creating conditions for stress reduction—reliable relationships, predictable responses, reduced demands—becomes primary intervention. Not because it guarantees behaviour change, but because it enables access to whatever adaptive capacity exists beneath stress-driven survival responses.
Part 2 examines how these stress-dependent shifts relate to a broader functioning spectrum—from mild adaptive functioning through to marked survival-mode dominance—and introduces a further dimension: whether a young person's response reflects genuine engagement with present reality or a past pattern activated by current triggers.
Professor Antonia Bifulco and her team at Middlesex University's Centre for Abuse and Trauma Studies developed the Attachment Style Interview (ASI), a semi-structured assessment tool that measures adult attachment patterns through evaluation of current close relationships (Bifulco & Thomas, 2012). Unlike self-report measures, the ASI examines how individuals actually function in relationships, focusing particularly on their capacity to recognise, access, and utilise social support.
Bifulco's research identified six attachment styles in adults:
Bifulco's work demonstrated that these attachment styles significantly predict how individuals respond to offers of support, particularly under stress (Bifulco et al., 2002). Her research showed that insecure attachment styles correlated with clinical depression, particularly when attitudes and behaviours within these styles were "non-standard" or dysfunctional.
For safeguarding practice, Bifulco's framework suggests that a young person's attachment style may shape their capacity to recognise risk, accept support, and utilise professional intervention.
Research observations of two 17-year-olds in exploitative relationships illustrate this pattern:
Young Person A (presenting with secure attachment indicators): Recognised exploitation when professionals explained patterns, accepted support from Youth Worker, actively sought help when relationship became physically violent, utilised refuge services effectively.
Young Person B (presenting with angry-dismissive attachment indicators): Rejected professional concerns as interference, viewed Youth Worker with suspicion, interpreted support offers as attempts at control, returned to exploitative relationship to assert autonomy.
These young people received identical interventions. The differing outcomes appeared to relate not to the quality of professional practice but to their attachment-based capacity to utilise support.
Traditional child protection planning appears to treat all young people as though they have secure attachment capacity. The ASI framework suggests why this approach may not be universally effective.
A critical dimension within Bifulco's ASI framework concerns the intensity at which each attachment style operates. Bifulco's research demonstrates that insecure attachment styles exist on a functioning spectrum—from mild through moderate to marked—and that the same attachment style can produce fundamentally different presentations depending on where on this spectrum an individual is currently functioning (Bifulco & Thomas, 2012). This spectrum is not merely about degree. It alters what is possible in terms of professional engagement, and it reframes how practitioners understand what can appear as resistance or defiance.
The starting point for understanding this spectrum is recognising that each insecure attachment pattern originated as a survival strategy. These were not developmental failures. They were adaptive responses to specific caregiving environments—and crucially, at mild levels of functioning, they retain much of that adaptive value. What appears pathological at marked functioning level may, at mild level, represent a genuine strength.
Consider the enmeshed attachment style. The survival strategy at its origin was about maintaining proximity to an inconsistent or emotionally volatile caregiver—staying attuned, staying close, reading the relationship with hypervigilant sensitivity. At mild level in ordinary life, this becomes someone who is genuinely enjoyable company. They follow your lead with enthusiasm—suggest a gig, a spontaneous afternoon, a new restaurant, and they are in, not out of anxiety but because they have developed a real pleasure in being part of other people's plans. They offer confidence boosts that feel genuine because they are. They are warm, loyal, and the kind of friend who makes your ideas feel worth pursuing. The social glue who makes group activities actually enjoyable rather than a chore. The enthusiasm is infectious, and at this level it carries others along with it. At marked functioning, however, this same pattern becomes a friend who gives no space, where the relationship feels stifling and cancerous.
The fearful attachment style presents a different kind of mild-level strength. The survival strategy originated in an environment where the caregiver was simultaneously source of comfort and source of danger—producing hypervigilance about environmental threat. At mild level, this vigilance does not produce paralysis. It produces planning. This is someone who thinks ahead about what could go wrong—and does something about it. They notice the exit. They pack the spare charger. They book the venue six weeks in advance. They have a backup plan for the backup plan. In a workplace, this translates directly into strong performance as a personal assistant, office manager, or team manager. They are naturally attuned to risk—not in a way that stops things happening, but in a way that ensures things happen smoothly. "What if this doesn't work? What is the contingency?" is not anxious catastrophising at mild level. It is good risk management. They are the person who catches the problem before it becomes a crisis, who builds the buffer into the timeline, who thinks about the thing no one else has thought about. At marked functioning, however, this becomes paralysing terror—unable to move toward connection or away from it, frozen in approach-avoidance patterns where every option feels equally dangerous.
The angry-dismissive style at mild level becomes someone who can evaluate situations with genuine analytical rigour, unswayed by social pressure or sentiment. They are the person who spots the flaw in the plan when everyone else is nodding along. The editor who makes your writing actually better rather than just telling you it is fine. The colleague who, in a meeting full of agreement, asks "but have we actually considered...?"—and is usually right to ask. They will not just tell you what you want to hear. This is occasionally uncomfortable. It is also genuinely, practically useful. They maintain standards when others are drifting. The same analytical independence that, under stress, tips into wholesale rejection of all input is, at mild level, a quality-control function that any team or project benefits from. At marked functioning, however, this becomes hostile rejection of all input—everyone is attempting control, trust becomes impossible, and every offer of support is interpreted as an attack on autonomy.
The withdrawn style at mild level produces something quietly but genuinely valuable: a person who processes deeply before acting, who is not swayed by pressure or the emotional temperature of the room, who remains steady when others are reacting. Their opinion, when offered, carries weight precisely because it is not offered lightly. They are reliable in a way that more reactive people are not—consistent, measured, present. The quiet colleague who, when they do speak up, says something that shifts the conversation. The friend who, when everyone else is spiralling, says "alright, here is what we actually do"—and somehow that is exactly what is needed. At marked functioning, however, this becomes complete emotional shutdown—relationally absent, unreachable, withdrawn so far that engagement appears impossible.
There is something worth observing about how these mild-level strengths sit alongside one another. A well-functioning group—whether a team, a friendship circle, or a family—might actually benefit from having a range of these styles operating at mild level. The enmeshed person provides enthusiasm and social cohesion. The fearful person provides risk management and contingency thinking. The angry-dismissive person provides quality control and honest challenge. The withdrawn person provides stability and measured perspective. Each compensates for what the others lack. The dysfunction emerges not from the presence of these patterns but from the conditions that push them from mild adaptive functioning into moderate or marked survival-mode dominance.
At moderate functioning levels, the survival strategy begins to override other capacities. The scrutiny of the angry-dismissive becomes more rigid and less selective—questions shift from productive analytical engagement to systematic rejection of input. The relationship-attunement of the enmeshed becomes anxious preoccupation, and independence becomes difficult. The caution of the fearful becomes oscillation between approach and avoidance. The self-containment of the withdrawn becomes active disengagement from relationship.
At marked functioning levels, the survival strategy dominates all functioning. The angry-dismissive individual is overwhelmed by fight response, hostile to all influence attempts. The enmeshed individual cannot function without group validation and cannot tolerate separation. The fearful individual's terror of vulnerability overrides all capacity for connection. The withdrawn individual has shut down so completely that relational engagement appears impossible.
For safeguarding practice with autonomous adolescents, this spectrum matters enormously. A young person presenting with angry-dismissive characteristics might be functioning at mild level—intellectually engaged, genuinely capable of reaching their own conclusions when given evidence and space. The same attachment style at marked level produces a fundamentally different presentation: hostile, rejecting, currently unreachable. The intervention that works well with the mild angry-dismissive young person may actively worsen outcomes with the marked angry-dismissive young person—not because it is wrong in principle, but because the functioning level has shifted what is possible.
Understanding functioning level therefore adds a crucial assessment dimension. Before determining which approach to take, practitioners might consider: at what level is this attachment style currently operating? Is there evidence of mild functioning—adaptive problem-solving, capacity for engagement under the right conditions? Or has stress, trauma, or accumulated experience pushed the style toward marked functioning, where the survival strategy has become so dominant that professional engagement is currently beyond what any intervention can achieve?
The functioning spectrum raises a further question that is perhaps even more fundamental than the style itself or the level at which it operates: is this person responding to what is actually happening now, or responding to what happened before?
This is the question of authenticity—and it is where Eric Berne's Transactional Analysis model becomes directly relevant. Berne, working contemporaneously with Bowlby in the 1950s and 1960s, developed a framework for understanding how early relational experience shapes present-moment interaction through the concept of ego states (Berne, 1961, 1964). Where Bowlby focused on how attachment patterns form and persist across the lifespan, Berne focused on how these patterns manifest in moment-to-moment transactions between people.
Berne proposed that each person carries three ego states—Parent, Adult, and Child—representing distinct modes of processing and responding.
The Adult ego state represents present-moment, reality-based functioning. It assesses what is actually happening now, evaluates current information, and responds accordingly. When someone is operating from Adult, their response is authentic—grounded in present reality rather than past experience.
The Parent ego state represents internalised patterns from authority figures—rules, values, behaviours absorbed from caregivers and other significant adults. When someone operates from Parent, they are not responding from their own present-moment assessment but from an inherited position. They may genuinely believe they are making an independent judgement, but the judgement has been pre-formed by someone else's authority, absorbed long ago and replayed automatically.
The Child ego state represents early emotional experience—the feelings, beliefs, and behavioural responses formed in childhood in response to the environment. When someone operates from Child, they are responding to present events as though they were past events. The emotional intensity, the automatic behavioural response, the inability to engage with the situation as it actually is—these reflect the Child's original experience being activated by something in the present that feels sufficiently similar.
The attachment styles map directly onto this framework. The angry-dismissive person whose survival strategy was self-reliance in the face of rejecting care is likely to have a strongly activated Child state in situations that trigger the original pattern—situations involving authority, care offers, or influence attempts. When this Child state activates, the Adult—the part that could genuinely evaluate the current situation and respond authentically—becomes inaccessible. The response is automatic. It is from the past. It is inauthentic to the present.
Berne identified that transactions—exchanges between people—can be complementary or crossed. A complementary transaction is one where both parties are operating from the ego states they intend. An Adult-to-Adult exchange: two people genuinely engaging with present reality. This is where authentic dialogue happens.
A crossed transaction occurs when one party's communication hooks the other into an ego state they were not operating from. And here the safeguarding context becomes particularly sharp. A professional who communicates from their own Parent ego state—"You need to understand that this relationship is dangerous. You need to make different choices"—is not speaking Adult-to-Adult. They are speaking Parent-to-Child. And if the young person's attachment pattern has established a Child state that activates precisely in this dynamic—the authority figure telling them what to do—the transaction hooks. The young person is pulled into Child response. The professional's well-intentioned communication has, inadvertently, triggered exactly the inauthentic replay that makes engagement impossible.
This is not the professional's fault. It is not the young person's fault. It is the structure of the transaction. The professional intended to communicate concern. What they actually communicated—structurally, in terms of ego states—was a Parent-Child dynamic. And the young person's attachment history meant that this structure activated a pattern that has nothing to do with the current conversation.
Berne extended this analysis through the concept of the life script—an unconscious plan, a set of decisions made in childhood about how the world works, how others behave, and how one's own life will unfold, that gets replayed throughout life (Berne, 1972). The script is not a conscious choice. It runs automatically, shaping perception, interpretation, and response in ways the individual may never recognise.
For a young person whose early experience taught them that adults cannot be trusted, that care is conditional, that self-reliance is the only safe strategy, the script says: adults will let you down, support is a trap, I must manage alone. When a professional offers genuine support, the script does not update. It interprets the offer through its own established framework. Support becomes suspicious. The professional becomes untrustworthy. The young person's rejection is not a response to this professional. It is the script running.
This is inauthentic response at its most entrenched. The person is not engaging with present reality at all. They are living inside a narrative constructed decades ago by a caregiving environment that no longer exists—but that feels, neurologically and emotionally, exactly as real as it did when it was formed.
This is the fabricated world in operation. Living in a Fabricated World — the trilogy's second essay — establishes that the brain does not passively receive reality—it actively constructs it, using predictive models built from experience. When historical experience has been sufficiently intense or sustained, those models do not merely influence perception. They become the reality the brain generates. The inauthentic response is not a failure to engage with the world. It is engagement—but with a world the brain has fabricated from the past rather than assembled from the present. The young person is not choosing to ignore current information. Their brain is not currently generating current information. It is generating a version of reality built from historical pattern, and that version is neurologically indistinguishable from genuine present-moment experience.
The authenticity dimension maps precisely onto the functioning spectrum, and the connection between the two adds something crucial to both.
Mild functioning tends toward authentic response. The attachment style is present—the person carries their adapted skill, their risk-awareness or analytical rigour or social sensitivity—but they are genuinely engaging with the current situation. They can bring their pattern into the present and work with it. The script has not fully activated. Adult ego state is accessible. They are here, in this moment, responding to what is actually happening.
Moderate functioning represents the beginning of inauthenticity. The present situation is starting to be interpreted through the lens of past experience rather than assessed on its own terms. The script is beginning to run. Adult is becoming less accessible as Child or Parent ego states start to dominate. The person may still be partially present, but their responses are increasingly shaped by pattern rather than current reality. An intervention that engages their mild-level adaptive strength may still connect, but only partially, and the window may be narrowing.
Marked functioning is fully inauthentic response. The present has been entirely overwritten by the past. The script is running completely. Adult is inaccessible. The person is not responding to what is actually happening—they are responding to what happened before, activated by something in the present that felt sufficiently similar to trigger the original pattern. No amount of evidence, reasoning, or relationship-building can reach them at this level, because they are not currently available to receive it.
This reframes the professional question fundamentally. It is not "how do we get this young person to engage?" It is "is this young person currently available to engage?" And if the answer is no—if the response is clearly inauthentic, clearly a replay rather than a present-moment assessment—then the intervention priority shifts. Direct engagement becomes futile. What becomes possible is creating conditions in which authenticity might gradually re-emerge: reducing threat, establishing predictability, demonstrating through consistent behaviour that the present situation is genuinely different from the past situation that formed the script. This is slow work. Scripts formed over years do not dissolve overnight. But the consistent experience of safety and genuine respect for autonomy gradually reduces the threat activation that keeps the script running—and when Adult re-emerges, when the young person is for the first time genuinely responding to present reality rather than replaying past experience, that is when engagement becomes possible.
There is an uncomfortable but important observation here about professional practice. Professionals are not immune to their own scripts and ego state patterns. A social worker who grew up with a controlling parent may find themselves hooked into Parent ego state when working with resistant young people—becoming more authoritative, more directive, more insistent—precisely because the young person's resistance has activated their own pattern. A professional whose own attachment history includes rejection may experience a young person's resistance as personal, triggering their own need to be valued and accepted. The professional's response may then shift from Adult-to-Adult engagement to something driven by their own unmet need, and the young person—whose pattern is often exquisitely attuned to inauthenticity in others—senses this immediately.
Berne's framework suggests that authentic professional engagement—Adult-to-Adult communication—requires professionals to remain aware of their own ego state activation. When a young person triggers a strong emotional response in a professional, that is information. It may indicate that the professional's own script has been hooked. The intervention at that point is not to intensify the approach but to step back, notice what has been activated, and restore Adult functioning before re-engaging. In a profession under enormous pressure to produce results, this is not a comfortable observation. But if authenticity is the variable that determines whether engagement is possible, then professional self-awareness is not a luxury. It is a prerequisite for effective practice.
This raises a related complexity: the role of masking in professional-client interactions. Professionals can and should mask—they are employed and paid to do precisely this. A professional may have left home that morning after a major family argument, or received devastating news about someone close, yet they present the "professional self" to clients, colleagues, and other professionals, much as an actor presents a role. Some professionals are more skilled at this than others. Many need to offload to someone trusted in order to hold the mask in place for the rest of the day. This is not inauthenticity in Berne's sense—the Adult ego state can deliberately choose to manage personal emotional content in order to remain professionally effective. It is professional competence.
However, some young people—particularly those whose early survival depended on reading adult emotional states with hypervigilant precision—can detect professional masks with uncanny accuracy. They respond to the mask itself, often without understanding why it is there or what it conceals. A young person might interpret a professional's careful emotional management as "fake," "not really caring," or "just doing their job"—even when the professional's care is genuine but appropriately boundaried. This detection of masking can trigger the young person's own attachment patterns: if masked professionalism feels similar to conditional or performative care from early caregiving, the script activates and authentic engagement becomes impossible regardless of the professional's actual intentions.
Equally important is recognising that young people mask, often with considerable skill developed from early childhood as a survival strategy. A young person who learned that showing genuine emotion was dangerous, or that compliance kept them safe, or that certain presentations earned approval whilst others earned rejection, may have developed sophisticated masking capacity long before reaching adolescence. When both professional and young person are masked—each for legitimate reasons, each shaped by their own histories and current contexts—the potential for authentic Adult-to-Adult engagement diminishes significantly. Both parties may be operating with genuine care and genuine intent, yet the transaction occurs between masks rather than people.
The difficulty intensifies when masks slip. Something minor and often unforeseen—a particular phrase, a tone of voice, an unexpected question—can trigger either party's underlying emotional reality to break through. A professional's mask may slip when a young person's behaviour activates something in the professional's own history. A young person's mask may slip when stress, fatigue, or feeling genuinely safe for the first time allows the adapted presentation to fall away. These slips are not failures. They are information. They reveal what sits beneath the professional presentation—and a skilled practitioner who notices their own mask slipping can use that awareness to restore Adult functioning and recognise that the young person's presentation may similarly be a carefully maintained mask rather than their actual emotional reality.
For safeguarding practice, this masking dimension matters because it adds a further layer to the question of authenticity. When assessing whether a young person is responding to present reality or replaying past patterns, practitioners might also consider: am I seeing this young person, or am I seeing their mask? And crucially: what am I presenting—my Adult self, or my own carefully maintained professional mask? If both parties are masked, even genuine attempts at Adult-to-Adult engagement may fail to connect, not because the approach is wrong but because the transaction is occurring at a level removed from the genuine emotional reality of either party. Recognising this does not mean dropping professional boundaries—masks serve necessary protective and functional purposes for both professionals and young people. But it does mean understanding that authentic engagement may require creating conditions where masks can be safely lowered, at least partially, by both parties.
Whilst Bifulco's six-category system provides theoretical foundation, safeguarding practice may benefit from more granular typologies that practitioners can readily recognise. Drawing on attachment theory and observable patterns in adolescent services, this framework proposes eight distinct response patterns—each mapped to attachment styles but described through metaphors that facilitate immediate recognition.
The animal metaphors serve a purpose: different animals respond differently to influence attempts. A zebra follows the herd; a wildebeest only moves when the lion is charging; a leopard decides for itself; a panther assesses in silence before it acts. Understanding which pattern a young person presents may inform decisions about approach.
Each typology carries two names — an exotic animal and a familiar one. This is deliberate. Different readers will recognise the pattern through different entry points. Someone who has watched African nature documentaries will immediately understand what a wildebeest does when a lion approaches; someone who grew up around sheep and sheepdogs will understand the same behaviour from a different angle. Two names also sidestep the connotation that a single name can carry — particularly for patterns that might otherwise be read as passive, mindless, or stubborn. Neither name is intended as a label for the young person. These names would never appear in a case file, a CP plan, or a conversation with a young person. Their purpose is practitioner shorthand — a way of making a response pattern instantly recognisable in the moment a professional needs to think quickly about approach. The exotic animal is listed first throughout; either name may be used in practice.
Before presenting the eight typologies in detail, it is essential to acknowledge that whilst eight distinct patterns are described for clarity and recognition purposes, real-world presentation frequently involves combinations, oscillations, or shifts between patterns. This reflects both Bifulco's recognition of dual attachment styles (Bifulco et al., 2002b) and the stress-dependent nature of attachment pattern activation.
Several of the typologies presented here likely represent dual attachment patterns rather than pure single styles:
Wildebeest and Sheep likely combine enmeshed attachment (relationship-seeking, approval-dependent) with learned reliance on direct experience rather than vicarious learning, creating the characteristic pattern of engagement without behaviour change until consequences personally experienced
Giraffes and Goats may represent what could be termed secure attachment combined with neurological or personality characteristics requiring higher stimulation thresholds—not strictly a dual attachment style in Bifulco's sense but rather secure attachment capacity existing alongside factors affecting engagement patterns
Rhinos and Donkeys clearly represent dual attachment presentations combining withdrawn characteristics (relational absence, emotional inaccessibility) with angry-dismissive patterns (active opposition to perceived control), creating particularly intractable resistance where both relational engagement and authority-based direction trigger defensive responses
Additionally, individuals may demonstrate different typology characteristics depending on context, relationship, and stress level. A young person might present as Leopard (fearful, oscillating) with their Social Worker whilst demonstrating Raven (dismissive, intellectually engaged) characteristics with their therapist. Under high stress, a typically Giraffe-like individual might shift toward Rhino patterns. Following trauma, a previously Elephant-like young person might develop Leopard characteristics.
The typologies should therefore be understood as recognition frameworks rather than rigid categories. They offer patterns practitioners might observe, but these patterns exist within dynamic, stress-responsive, relationship-dependent systems. Practitioners should remain alert to complexity, combination, evolution, and the possibility that what appears as one typology represents a dual pattern or a stress-shifted presentation of another pattern entirely.
This complexity does not invalidate the typology framework—rather, it demands sophisticated application where recognition of patterns informs flexible response rather than categorical thinking. As Howe cautions regarding attachment classifications in child protection work, the danger lies not in using attachment concepts but in misusing them through oversimplification or rigid application that misses the relational and developmental complexity these concepts were designed to illuminate (Howe, 2024).
The functioning spectrum and authenticity dimension explored above add further layers to this sophistication. A young person presenting as Raven at mild functioning—intellectually engaged, reachable through evidence—may shift toward Leopard presentation as the same angry-dismissive attachment style moves toward marked functioning. Whether a young person's response is grounded in present-moment reality or driven by past pattern activation provides a crucial indicator of what is currently possible. The typologies that follow should therefore be understood as snapshots of functioning at a particular moment—shaped not only by the underlying attachment style and its dual-pattern complexity, but by the functioning level at which it is currently active and the degree to which the young person is available to engage with present reality.
Each typology below is mapped to the attachment style classifications of Bowlby, Ainsworth, Howe, and Bifulco. These mappings should be understood as symptomatic and behavioural presentations only—observable patterns that suggest an underlying attachment style—and not as clinical diagnoses. The same attachment style manifests differently across the lifecourse and across functioning levels, and the mappings here represent each typology's characteristic presentation rather than a definitive classification of the individual.
Note on Case Illustrations: All case examples presented throughout the typology sections are fictional, constructed from generic patterns commonly observed in frontline safeguarding practice. They represent composite presentations synthesised from professional understanding rather than real individuals or specific cases.
Attachment Style Mapping:
Functioning Levels:
Secure attachment does not follow the same survival-strategy-to-dysfunction trajectory as insecure styles. Elephants and Roosters demonstrate relatively stable functioning across stress levels because secure attachment provides effective stress-regulation capacity (Sroufe et al., 2005). At mild-to-moderate functioning, Elephants and Roosters show effective help-seeking, healthy emotional regulation, and genuine capacity to form and utilise supportive relationships. Their responses tend toward authenticity—they are generally engaging with present reality rather than replaying past patterns, and their trust in specific individuals reflects present-moment assessment rather than automatic script.
However, even secure patterns can be temporarily disrupted by extreme or sustained stress, or by betrayal of a trusted relationship. An Elephant or Rooster whose trusted person has let them down, or who has experienced overwhelming trauma, may temporarily present with characteristics of other typologies—particularly Leopards or Gazelles—as the nervous system shifts into survival mode. In these circumstances, the previously secure young person is no longer functioning from their characteristic pattern. Their responses may appear inauthentic—driven by the acute experience rather than their usual present-moment engagement. The intervention priority shifts to stress reduction and relationship repair, creating conditions in which secure functioning can re-emerge, rather than attempting to engage with a presentation that does not reflect the young person's characteristic way of being in the world.
Elephants and Roosters are characterised by their loyalty to specific trusted individuals. Unlike Zebras and Cows who follow peer groups, Elephants and Roosters bond with particular people and demonstrate high responsiveness to those specific relationships. Once trust is established, relationship-based interventions appear highly effective.
Common presentations observed in safeguarding contexts: - Young person who has bonded with a specific Youth Worker and demonstrates selective listening to that professional - Care leaver who maintains connection with one particular Foster Carer despite placement ending - Adolescent who trusts their key teacher whilst rejecting other school staff - Young person who responds to one family member's concerns but not others'
Research and practice observations suggest that Elephants and Roosters respond positively to approaches that: - Prioritise investment in the relationship with their trusted person - Ensure continuity of that key professional relationship - Channel interventions through the trusted relationship rather than multiple professionals - Build on the foundation of trust rather than introducing numerous new professionals - Allow the trusted person to guide them toward safer choices
Observations indicate that approaches which may be less effective include: - Rotating staff to "prevent dependency" (appears to damage the very relationship that enables influence) - Introducing multiple professionals when one trusted relationship exists - Procedural requirements that undermine the trusted relationship - Expecting the young person to trust new professionals at the same level
Plans that explicitly acknowledge and protect the key relationship appear to align more closely with the Elephant and Rooster pattern. Example language observed in effective plans:
"Assessment indicates this young person has formed secure attachment with Youth Worker Sarah. Sarah will maintain weekly contact and use this relationship to explore concerns about current accommodation. All other professionals will coordinate through Sarah rather than multiple direct approaches which may dilute the influence of the trusted relationship."
Connor, aged 16, entered foster care following parental drug use. He rejected multiple Youth Workers until placed with Dave, his current Foster Carer. Connor now discusses everything with Dave, including his involvement with an older peer group suspected of county lines activity. Dave's consistent, non-judgemental approach appeared to enable Connor to share his fears about the group's expectations. The CP plan centred on maintaining Dave's placement and utilising this relationship rather than introducing multiple interventions that might have diluted Dave's influence.
Attachment Style Mapping:
Functioning Levels:
Mild: Highly attuned to social dynamics, responsive to relationships, and genuinely benefiting from group belonging. The social orientation functions as a strength—this young person navigates peer dynamics with real sensitivity and can thrive when peer influences are positive. Their enthusiasm is authentic to the present; they are genuinely enjoying being part of something rather than driven by anxiety about exclusion. The survival strategy of maintaining closeness to others for safety operates as effective social intelligence and warmth.
Moderate: Need for belonging becomes more urgent and less selective. Begins to follow peer group direction without evaluating whether it serves their own interests. Independence becomes increasingly difficult, and identity starts to merge with the group. Responses become less authentically present-moment—the young person is increasingly responding to the social dynamic as an anxious system rather than engaging with current reality through their own assessment. The group provides both connection and anxiety-reduction, which explains why separating Zebras and Cows from peer groups at this level often intensifies rather than reduces problematic behaviour—it removes the primary regulation mechanism without providing alternative.
Marked: Identity is entirely subsumed by group. Cannot recognise or act on own needs if they conflict with group expectations. Separation from group triggers severe anxiety or identity crisis. The script is running fully—the young person cannot access an independent assessment of present reality because their entire frame of reference has become the group. Autonomy feels impossible. At this level, the survival strategy of maintaining closeness has become so dominant that the young person is essentially living inside a collectively constructed reality rather than engaging with their own.
Zebras and Cows follow peer groups and influential others. They appear to need social connection for emotional regulation and demonstrate high responsiveness to peer behaviour. Their choices are often heavily influenced by who they spend time with and their need for social belonging.
Common presentations observed in safeguarding contexts: - Young person whose behaviour changes dramatically based on peer group composition - Adolescent who was progressing well until new friendship group formed - Young person in CSE situation where peer normalisation appears significant - Care leaver who becomes involved in problematic behaviour when associating with certain peers
Research and practice observations suggest that Zebras and Cows respond positively to approaches that: - Create opportunities for positive peer group engagement - Identify and engage influential peers within their social network - Utilise group-based interventions rather than isolated individual work - Make prosocial choices socially attractive and peer-endorsed - Build team mentality around healthier options
Observations indicate that approaches which may be less effective include: - Isolated one-to-one work that does not address peer dynamics - Attempting to completely separate them from all peers - Ignoring the power of peer influence in favour of adult authority - Individual responsibility approaches that do not acknowledge group dynamics
Plans that focus on peer influence and group belonging appear to align more closely with the Zebra and Cow pattern. Example language observed in effective plans:
"Assessment indicates this young person's choices are heavily influenced by peer group dynamics. Plan will focus on creating alternative positive peer connections through youth club engagement, football team participation, and introduction to prosocial peer mentors through the Youth Offending Team's group programme."
Jade, aged 17, became involved with an older male group after moving into supported accommodation. Assessment showed she had no friends outside this group and her self-esteem appeared entirely dependent on their acceptance. Rather than attempting to separate her from them directly, the plan focused on introducing her to a peer support group for care leavers, where she gradually formed connections with young women making different choices. As these friendships developed, her involvement with the exploitative group appeared to reduce naturally as she had alternative social belonging.
Attachment Style Mapping:
Functioning Levels:
Wildebeest and Sheep likely represent a dual pattern combining enmeshed attachment characteristics—relationship-focused, approval-seeking, difficulty with autonomous decision-making—with learned dependence on direct experience for learning consolidation. This combination is crucial to understanding the Sheep pattern across functioning levels.
Mild: Processes through direct experience rather than abstract information—a valid and common learning style. Can engage with professionals and values relationships, but learning consolidates through lived experience rather than verbal persuasion. At this level, the response is authentic. The young person is genuinely present, genuinely values the professional relationship, and genuinely wants to do well. They simply cannot integrate warnings into behaviour change until experience confirms what has been said. The enmeshed element produces engagement; the experience-dependence produces the need for consequences before change consolidates. This is not indifference to risk. It is a different route to learning.
Moderate: Optimistic beliefs increasingly override evidence of risk. Professional warnings are heard but not integrated into behaviour. The gap between intellectual understanding and experiential learning widens. Responses begin to drift from authentic present-moment engagement toward script-driven pattern—the young person may genuinely believe things will work out whilst all available evidence suggests otherwise, not because they are ignoring reality but because the script is running and overriding present-moment assessment.
Marked: Unable to act on any warning regardless of severity. May continue in demonstrably dangerous situations until consequences are extreme. Under high stress, even consequence-driven learning may fail to consolidate—the survival strategy of maintaining current arrangements overrides all processing of risk. At this level, the young person is fully unavailable to present-moment engagement. The script is running completely, and neither information nor relationship can reach them until experience forces a confrontation with reality that the script cannot deny.
Wildebeest and Sheep appear to move primarily when pushed by discomfort or consequences. They do not appear to respond to attractive alternatives or relationship-based appeals—rather, they appear to need reality to press in before taking action. Current circumstances must apparently become uncomfortable enough to motivate change.
This is the sharpest distinction in the typology: wildebeest and gazelles share the same African landscape, respond to the same lions, but behave in fundamentally different ways. The gazelle bolts at the first signal of threat. The wildebeest stands until the charge is real. It is this difference — not the similarity — that makes the pairing instructive.
Common presentations observed in safeguarding contexts: - Young person who only engages with services when facing court proceedings - Adolescent who will not leave risky accommodation until actually evicted - Young person who ignores health concerns until emergency admission occurs - Care leaver who does not address budgeting until debts become overwhelming
Research and practice observations suggest that Wildebeest and Sheep respond when: - Natural consequences are allowed to occur without premature rescue - Boundaries are maintained whilst availability continues - Reality creates sufficient discomfort to motivate action - Professionals remain present when motivation finally emerges
Observations indicate that approaches which may be less effective include: - Repeated rescue from natural consequences - Explaining risks (information alone appears insufficient) - Relationship-based persuasion without consequence pressure - Offering attractive alternatives before consequences create motivation - Premature problem-solving that cushions reality
Plans that honestly acknowledge the dynamic appear to align more closely with the Wildebeest and Sheep pattern. Example language observed in effective plans:
"Assessment indicates this young person is not currently motivated to change despite significant risks identified. Professional network will maintain minimal contact, clarify realistic consequences of current choices, and remain available when circumstances create motivation for change. Natural consequences will not be cushioned prematurely if they may eventually create motivation."
Ryan, aged 18, refused all support despite rough sleeping and deteriorating health. Multiple professionals attempted engagement with housing support, benefits advice, and healthcare connections. All approaches were rejected. The assessment recognised that until his circumstances became sufficiently uncomfortable, external motivation would not be effective. The plan maintained minimal contact—a weekly text from his Personal Adviser stating "still here if you want support." After three months of increasing hardship, Ryan initiated contact. Because the relationship had not been damaged by pressure, support could begin when he was ready.
Attachment Style Mapping:
Functioning Levels:
Like Elephants and Roosters, Giraffes and Goats map to secure attachment and demonstrate relatively stable functioning. Their characteristic curiosity, independence, and capacity for self-directed engagement represent healthy autonomous functioning rather than a survival strategy, and therefore do not follow the mild-to-marked deterioration pattern seen in insecure styles.
At mild-to-moderate functioning, Giraffes and Goats show effective self-direction, genuine intellectual curiosity, and capacity to utilise novel opportunities as springboards for development. Their responses are authentically present-moment—they are engaging with what is actually in front of them, drawn by genuine interest rather than driven by past pattern. Their need for intellectual stimulation and autonomy functions as adaptive self-direction.
Under extreme or sustained stress, secure functioning may be temporarily compromised, and a previously Giraffe-like young person might shift toward Rhino patterns—oppositional resistance replacing curious engagement—as the nervous system overrides higher-order functioning with survival responses. At this point, the young person's characteristic authenticity and curiosity are no longer accessible. The intervention priority becomes stress reduction, creating conditions in which curiosity and autonomous engagement can re-emerge, rather than attempting to engage with a presentation that does not reflect the young person's characteristic functioning.
Giraffes and Goats are independent and inquisitive. They appear to respond to interesting challenges, novel opportunities, or intellectual engagement rather than following peers or responding to pressure. They appear to need to be intrigued, not instructed.
Common presentations observed in safeguarding contexts: - Bright young person who rejects traditional services but engages with creative projects - Adolescent who will not participate in standard programmes but will try something unusual - Young person who responds to challenges rather than support offers - Care leaver who thrives with entrepreneurial or creative opportunities
Research and practice observations suggest that Giraffes and Goats respond positively when: - Interventions are interesting and challenging rather than routine - Appeals are made to their intelligence and curiosity - Unusual opportunities are offered - Support is framed as adventure or puzzle rather than help - Their need for autonomy is respected whilst their mind is engaged
Observations indicate that approaches which may be less effective include: - Standard programmes and usual institutional interventions - Communication that appears to underestimate their intelligence - Boring, routine support offers - Authority-based approaches - Anything that feels institutional or prescribed
Plans that focus on novel engagement appear to align more closely with the Giraffe and Goat pattern. Example language observed in effective plans:
"Assessment indicates this young person is highly intelligent and dismissive of standard interventions. Plan will offer unusual opportunities: photography project documenting local area, coding workshop with tech start-up, mentoring from creative professional. These will provide relationship-building context whilst appealing to their curiosity and autonomy."
Ella, aged 17, rejected all standard CSE intervention following disclosure of exploitation by older boyfriend. Being highly intelligent, she found group work "boring" and one-to-one support "patronising." The Youth Worker took a different approach—challenged her to create an awareness campaign about CSE for younger teens. This required researching manipulation tactics, understanding grooming patterns, and reflecting on her own experiences. The project appeared to engage her intellectually whilst allowing processing of her trauma. Through creating content to educate others, she appeared to develop insight into her own situation.
Attachment Style Mapping:
Functioning Levels:
Some Leopards and Cats demonstrate pure angry-dismissive attachment; others show dual fearful-angry patterns where approach-avoidance dynamics combine with defensive hostility. The dual pattern produces particularly complex presentations—wanting connection but finding closeness unbearable (fearful element), whilst simultaneously perceiving support offers as control attempts requiring hostile rejection (angry element). Understanding which presentation is operative at any given moment is informed by the functioning level.
Mild: Self-determined and independent, but not impermeable. Can be reached through patient, long-term engagement that genuinely respects autonomy. The self-reliance functions as adaptive independence—this young person manages their own life effectively in many areas and does not need extensive professional support for routine functioning. Responses at this level are authentically present-moment. The young person is genuinely evaluating the situation, genuinely exercising autonomous judgement. They may reject professional input—but the rejection is based on present-moment assessment rather than automatic pattern replay. The survival strategy of rejecting dependence operates as healthy self-sufficiency.
Moderate: Suspicion of professional engagement increases. Views influence attempts as control. Begins to actively reject support offers. Independence becomes defensive rather than simply functional. The script is beginning to activate—the young person is starting to interpret present interactions through the lens of past experience rather than assessing them on their own terms. The survival strategy of self-reliance starts to override capacity to distinguish between genuine support and unwanted intrusion.
Marked: Overwhelmed by fight response. All professional contact is experienced as threat. Hostile rejection of any influence attempt. The script is running completely—the present professional is no longer being seen as an individual but as a representative of every authority figure who has previously attempted to control. The young person is fully unavailable to present-moment engagement. The survival strategy has become so dominant that Adult functioning is inaccessible. At this level, the dual fearful-angry pattern may be at its most intense—oscillating between vulnerability and aggression in ways that reflect the depth of the underlying conflict rather than any response to current reality.
Leopards and Cats are completely autonomous decision-makers, suspicious of all external influence. They actively reject support, maintain emotional distance, and appear to respond to pressure with increased resistance. High self-reliance is combined with apparent dismissal of need for others.
Common presentations observed in safeguarding contexts: - Young person who attends meetings but makes clear they will do what they choose - Adolescent who views all professional involvement as interference - Young person who has been in "the system" extensively and trusts no one - Care leaver who rejects all support to assert independence
Research and practice observations suggest that Leopards and Cats may eventually engage when: - Their autonomy is completely respected - Information is made available without any pressure to engage - Distant availability is maintained without pursuit - Their choices are accepted, even when concerning - Very long-term relationship building occurs with no apparent agenda
Observations indicate that approaches which typically increase resistance include: - Pressure of any kind, even subtle - Multiple professionals pursuing contact - Relationship-based appeals to engage - Explaining concerns (which they may already understand but dismiss) - Any attempt to control or persuade
Plans that maintain availability without intensifying pressure appear to align more closely with the Leopard and Cat pattern. Example language observed in some plans:
"Assessment indicates this young person is currently resistant to professional engagement and views support offers as unwanted intrusion. Plan will maintain one named professional available at low frequency. Contact will not be pursued. If young person initiates contact, immediate response will be provided. Reviews will continue and the team will remain alert to any shift in the young person's presentation."
Marcus, aged 19, subject to CP plan due to concerns about gang involvement and drug dealing. He attended Child in Need meetings, was polite, but made absolutely clear he would continue current lifestyle and viewed professional concerns as "none of your business." Previous approach had involved multiple professionals attempting to engage, build relationship, and offer alternatives. All were rejected. Following honest assessment of currently limited influence, the new approach involved stopping all pursuit. One professional sent occasional text: "Still around if you ever want to talk." No pressure, no judgement. Eighteen months later, after witnessing serious violence, Marcus initiated contact. Because the relationship had not been damaged by pressure, support could begin when he was ready.
Attachment Style Mapping:
Functioning Levels:
Some Panthers and Ravens demonstrate pure angry-dismissive attachment; others show dual patterns combining angry-dismissive characteristics with withdrawn elements. These individuals do not simply intellectually dismiss emotional support—they also struggle to access emotional awareness at all. The combination produces both active rejection of sentiment and genuine inability to process emotional content, making the intellectual-only engagement both defensive strategy and authentic limitation. The functioning level at which this dual pattern operates significantly shapes what engagement looks like.
Mild: Intellectually engaged, questioning, and capable of reaching conclusions and acting on them when given sufficient evidence and reasoning. At this level, the questioning is authentically present-moment—the young person is genuinely evaluating what has been said, genuinely working through the logic. Their analytical rigour is a strength. They can be a highly effective partner in their own safeguarding when their need for evidence and transparent reasoning is respected. The survival strategy of self-reliance operates as productive analytical engagement with the actual situation in front of them.
Moderate: Questions become more demanding and less satisfiable. May require increasing levels of evidence before considering professional concerns. The analytical engagement that was productive at mild level starts to become more systematic in its rejection—not because the evidence is genuinely inadequate but because the script is beginning to run, interpreting professional reasoning through a lens of past experience where input was not trustworthy. The young person may still be partially present, but authenticity is eroding.
Marked: Intellectual engagement becomes a shield against all connection. No evidence is sufficient. Professional reasoning is dismissed on principle rather than evaluation. Adult functioning has been overridden by the script—the present professional's reasoning cannot reach the young person because they are not currently assessing it. They are running a pattern. At this level, the presentation may become indistinguishable from Leopard characteristics—reflecting the shared angry-dismissive foundation operating at its most extreme, where the analytical capacity that was a genuine strength at mild level has become impermeable to any influence.
Panthers and Ravens are highly intelligent, analytical young people who appear unwilling to engage until they understand the logic. They appear to need evidence and transparent reasoning, not emotional appeals or relationship-based influence. They watch, analyse, and only appear to move when intellectually convinced.
Common presentations observed in safeguarding contexts: - Young person who questions every professional assertion - Adolescent who demands evidence for concerns raised - Young person who researches professional backgrounds and questions qualifications - Care leaver who will not engage until they understand "why" not just "what"
Research and practice observations suggest that Panthers and Ravens respond positively when: - Transparent explanations of all concerns are provided - Evidence and research are shared openly - Professional reasoning is explained clearly - Their intelligence is respected - They are allowed to reach their own conclusions - Their questioning is tolerated as their processing style
Observations indicate that approaches which may increase resistance include: - "Trust me" approaches without explanation - Emotional appeals without logical reasoning - Refusing to explain professional reasoning - Interpreting their questions as disrespect - Expecting compliance without providing understanding
Plans that emphasise transparency and evidence appear to align more closely with the Panther and Raven pattern. Example language observed in effective plans:
"Assessment indicates this young person is highly analytical and will not engage without understanding professional reasoning. All concerns will be explained with evidence. Research on exploitation patterns, neuroscience of coercive control, and legal frameworks will be shared. Young person will be given time to process information and reach own conclusions. Pressure tactics which may trigger resistance will be avoided."
Zara, aged 17, was in a relationship with a 26-year-old showing concerning controlling behaviours. Professionals raised concerns; Zara challenged every assertion. "Prove he's controlling." "Show me evidence this is harmful." Rather than interpreting this as defensiveness, the Youth Worker engaged intellectually—provided research on coercive control patterns, neuroscience of trauma bonding, and statistics on escalation. Academic articles were offered. "Read these, tell me what you think." Three weeks later, Zara returned with highlighted articles and said "I think you might be right about some things." Because her intelligence was respected and she was given evidence rather than instructions, she appeared able to process concerns on her terms.
Attachment Style Mapping:
Functioning Levels:
Gazelles and Horses map to fearful attachment—the pattern formed when the caregiver was simultaneously source of comfort and source of danger, producing an unresolvable conflict that the psyche manages through approach-avoidance oscillation. At marked functioning levels, this can produce presentations that appear closer to complete withdrawal than to the oscillation characteristic of fearful attachment at milder levels, as the terror of vulnerability becomes so dominant that it shuts down all relational capacity. Understanding the functioning level is therefore particularly important with Gazelles, as the presentation can shift dramatically across the spectrum.
Mild: Cautious about vulnerability, takes time to trust, but can eventually engage when genuine safety is established and consistently maintained over time. At this level, the caution is authentically present-moment—the young person is genuinely assessing whether the current environment is safe before risking connection. The survival strategy of approach-avoidance operates as healthy risk-assessment. When safety is confirmed through sustained experience, meaningful relationships can form. The young person is here, engaging with present reality, simply doing so more slowly and carefully than others might.
Moderate: Approach-avoidance oscillation becomes more pronounced. Begins to engage, then retreats when connection deepens or vulnerability increases. The script is beginning to activate—past experience of danger in closeness is starting to override present-moment assessment of safety. Inconsistency in engagement grows. Flight responses become more easily triggered, and the young person may find it increasingly difficult to distinguish between present safety and the danger that closeness carried in the past.
Marked: Terror of vulnerability completely overrides desire for connection. Flight response dominates all interaction. The young person cannot access the emotional presence necessary for genuine relationship—they are responding entirely to the script, which says that closeness means danger. Any approach, even gentle, patient, or well-intentioned, triggers panic because it activates the original pattern. The present professional is not being experienced as an individual. They are being experienced as a source of potential danger, because the script has entirely overwritten present reality. At this level, the presentation can appear closer to complete withdrawal than to oscillation—the approach element has been suppressed so thoroughly that only flight remains.
Gazelles and Horses appear to want connection but are terrified of vulnerability. Any approach—even supportive—can trigger flight responses. They appear to bolt from pressure but might approach if professionals are still and patient. Trauma-affected young people often present this pattern.
Common presentations observed in safeguarding contexts: - Young person who engages well then suddenly disappears - Adolescent who seems connected then goes missing without explanation - Young person whose behaviour deteriorates after positive connection develops - Care leaver who sabotages supportive relationships just as they deepen
Research and practice observations suggest that Gazelles and Horses may eventually engage when: - Absolute safety and predictability are created - Professionals are still and available rather than pursuing - They are allowed to approach at their own pace - Their retreat is tolerated without being taken personally - Consistent presence is maintained without pressure - Trauma-informed approaches are used throughout
Observations indicate that approaches which typically trigger flight include: - Pursuing when they retreat - Taking their flight response as personal rejection - Pressure of any kind, even gentle or well-intentioned - Multiple professionals attempting simultaneous connection - Expectations of consistent engagement
Plans that prioritise safety over engagement appear to align more closely with the Gazelle and Horse pattern. Example language observed in effective plans:
"Assessment indicates this young person has fearful attachment pattern, likely due to early trauma. They appear to want support but approach triggers panic responses. Plan will focus on creating safe, predictable environment. One consistent professional will be available at fixed times. No pursuit when young person retreats. When ready, they know where to find support. Patience is essential."
Leah, aged 16, with history of childhood sexual abuse, was living in supported accommodation. A pattern emerged: engage well with new Youth Worker for 2-3 weeks, then disappear completely. Multiple missing episodes occurred. Previous understanding: "doesn't want support," "self-sabotaging." Revised understanding: trauma response—as connection deepens, vulnerability feels dangerous and triggers flight. New approach: Youth Worker sent text every Monday: "Coffee available Tuesday 2pm at cafe, will be there whether you come or not." Sometimes Leah attended, sometimes not. When she didn't, the Youth Worker sat in the cafe doing paperwork. No pressure. Leah knew exactly where to find her. Over six months, engagement appeared to increase as Leah could control the pace.
Attachment Style Mapping (dual presentation across all four frameworks):
Functioning Levels:
Rhinos and Donkeys clearly demonstrate dual attachment patterns combining withdrawn and angry-dismissive characteristics. The withdrawn element produces relational absence and difficulty accessing emotional connection. The angry-dismissive element generates active opposition to any perceived control. Understanding how this dual pattern manifests across functioning levels is essential, because the combination produces different presentations at different intensities—and the most entrenched presentation is not necessarily the most permanent.
Mild: Self-contained and reflective, preferring to process independently before engaging. Can be reached through patient approach that does not demand immediate connection or compliance. At this level, the dual pattern is less pronounced—the young person may demonstrate capacity for either relational engagement or autonomous functioning depending on context. The withdrawal functions as protective space rather than complete shutdown, and the oppositional element is less dominant. Responses at this level retain some authentic present-moment quality—the young person is genuinely processing, genuinely deciding, even if the decision is often "not yet."
Moderate: Emotional distance increases and active avoidance of connection develops. The angry-dismissive element begins to produce opposition to influence attempts alongside the withdrawn disengagement. The script is starting to run—the young person is interpreting present interactions through the lens of years of professional involvement that produced no genuine change. Resistance becomes more pronounced but retains some flexibility. The young person may still respond to approaches that demonstrate genuine respect for their autonomy and history, though the window for this is narrowing.
Marked: Complete relational and emotional shutdown combined with active opposition to all influence. The dual pattern at marked level produces the characteristic Rhino and Donkey impossibility: they will not engage relationally (withdrawn element fully active) AND they actively resist all influence attempts (angry-dismissive element fully active). Each aspect reinforces the other—emotional inaccessibility makes influence impossible; oppositional defiance prevents relational connection. The script is running completely. The present professional is not being seen as an individual but as the latest in a long line of adults who have attempted to manage their life. Adult functioning is inaccessible. At this level, professional engagement is beyond what any approach can currently achieve, and the intervention priority shifts to maintaining minimal availability whilst reducing environmental stress—not because this guarantees change, but because it is the only condition under which the script might eventually loosen its grip.
Rhinos and Donkeys appear to dig in when pushed or pulled. Years of professional involvement appear to have created defensive resistance—they oppose all external influence on principle. But underneath the resistance, they may be capable of deep connection if trust is earned through respect for their boundaries.
Common presentations observed in safeguarding contexts: - Young person who has been in care their entire life and rejects all "help" - Adolescent who has had 15 Social Workers and trusts none - Young person who oppositionally rejects everything offered - Care leaver who views all support as attempts at control
Research and practice observations suggest that Rhinos and Donkeys may eventually engage when: - Professionals stop trying to engage them - Their resistance is accepted as legitimate given their history - Very long-term patience is exercised - Their "no" is respected completely - Availability is maintained without agenda - They are allowed to initiate if they choose
Observations indicate that approaches which typically increase resistance include: - More pressure (appears to increase resistance proportionally) - Explaining why they should accept support - "For your own good" justifications - Multiple professionals attempting engagement simultaneously - Any form of coercion, even subtle or well-intentioned
Plans that honestly acknowledge resistance and respect it appear to align more closely with the Rhino and Donkey pattern. Example language observed in some plans:
"Assessment indicates this young person has developed oppositional resistance following years of professional involvement. Current attempts at engagement appear counterproductive and increase resistance. Plan acknowledges contact will not be pursued. One professional will send quarterly text confirming availability. If young person initiates contact, immediate response will be provided. Otherwise, their choice to refuse support will be respected whilst minimal distant availability is maintained."
Jordan, aged 18, had been in care since age 3. Fifteen placements. Twelve Social Workers. Current situation: sofa surfing, unemployed, refusing all support. "Had enough of you lot." Every professional approach met with explicit rejection. Previous understanding: "difficult," "resistant," "doesn't want help." Revised understanding: after 15 years of professionals coming and going, resistance is protective and understandable. New approach: all pursuit stopped. Leaving Care Personal Adviser sent one text: "I'm here if you ever want support. No pressure. No bullshit." Six months later, Jordan's friend was stabbed. Jordan called the Personal Adviser at 2am, terrified. Because the relationship had not been damaged by pressure, support could begin when Jordan decided he wanted it.
For each young person, assessment might explore:
What appears to motivate movement?
What appears to prevent movement?
Who appears to influence them?
What is their apparent relationship to authority?
At what functioning level does this attachment style appear to be operating?
Does the young person's response appear authentic to the present situation?
Observable Patterns:
| Typology | Key Recognition Pattern | Response to Professional Approach | Likely Attachment Style |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elephants and Roosters | Bonded to specific person, follows their guidance | Positive if trusted person involved, resistant to others | Secure |
| Zebras and Cows | Behaviour changes with peer group, socially driven | Responsive if peers involved, isolated approaches less effective | Enmeshed |
| Wildebeest and Sheep | Only acts when consequences press in | Rejects support until situation deteriorates | Enmeshed |
| Giraffes and Goats | Curious, intelligent, bored by standard approaches | Engages with novel/challenging, rejects routine | Secure |
| Leopards and Cats | Autonomous, actively rejects all influence | Increased resistance to any approach | Angry-Dismissive |
| Panthers and Ravens | Questions everything, needs evidence | Engages if given research/reasoning, rejects emotion | Angry-Dismissive |
| Gazelles and Horses | Approach-avoidance, disappears when connected | Flight response to approach, even gentle | Fearful |
| Rhinos and Donkeys | Oppositional to all offers, defensive resistance | Digs in when pushed or pulled | Withdrawn |
Presentation may shift between types: - Elephants and Roosters who become Leopards and Cats after betrayal by trusted person - Zebras and Cows who become Gazelles and Horses after peer group trauma - Panthers and Ravens who become Rhinos and Donkeys after repeated experiences of "evidence-based" interventions proving ineffective
These shifts often reflect changes in functioning level rather than fundamental changes in attachment style. A Raven whose angry-dismissive attachment has moved from mild to marked functioning may present identically to a Leopard—not because they have become a different type but because the same underlying style is operating at a different intensity. Whether the young person's response appears authentic to present reality or driven by past pattern activation provides a further indicator: shifts toward inauthentic response, where the young person appears to be replaying rather than engaging, suggest the functioning level has moved toward marked. Assessing functioning level and authenticity alongside typology helps distinguish between these possibilities.
Context influences presentation: - Same young person might present as Raven with professionals but Zebra with peers - Might present as Elephant with one specific person but Leopard with everyone else - Might present as Giraffe regarding education but Sheep regarding relationships
Stress affects presentation: - Secure types (Elephants, Giraffes) may temporarily present as insecure under extreme stress - Insecure types may show capacity for more secure functioning in safe environments - Understanding current presentation requires considering recent experiences and current stress levels
This section presents observations from practice and research about approaches that appear associated with maintained professional relationships and approaches that appear associated with increased resistance or disengagement. These observations are offered as information to inform professional decision-making, not as prescriptive instructions.
Approaches observed to be associated with positive engagement: - Protection of continuity with key professional relationship - Channelling all interventions through the trusted relationship - Building on established trust to introduce new experiences gradually - Using trusted person's guidance to address risk - Avoiding dilution of influence by limiting number of professionals involved
Observed CP plan language in cases showing sustained engagement: "This young person has formed secure attachment with [named professional]. All safeguarding interventions will utilise this relationship. [Professional] will meet weekly, gradually explore concerns, and introduce alternative perspectives through trusted connection."
Approaches observed to be associated with positive engagement: - Creating opportunities for positive peer group involvement - Identifying and engaging influential peers within their network - Utilising group-based interventions - Making prosocial choices socially attractive - Building "team" mentality around healthier options
Observed CP plan language in cases showing sustained engagement: "This young person's choices are heavily influenced by peer group dynamics. Plan focuses on creating alternative positive peer connections through [specific group activities]. Goal is not separation from peers but introduction to different social influences."
Approaches observed to be associated with eventual engagement: - Maintaining clear boundaries - Not cushioning natural consequences prematurely - Being present when motivation emerges from consequences - Clarifying realistic consequences without judgement - Remaining available without pressure
Observed CP plan language in cases showing eventual engagement: "Assessment indicates this young person is not currently motivated to change. Network will maintain minimal contact, clarify consequences of current choices, remain available when circumstances create motivation. Natural consequences will not be cushioned prematurely if they may create motivation."
Approaches observed to be associated with positive engagement: - Offering unusual opportunities - Appealing to intelligence and creativity - Framing support as adventure or puzzle - Respecting autonomy whilst engaging curiosity - Avoiding standard institutional programmes
Observed CP plan language in cases showing sustained engagement: "This young person is intelligent and dismissive of standard interventions. Plan offers novel opportunities: [specific creative/challenging projects]. These provide relationship-building context whilst appealing to curiosity and autonomy."
Approaches observed to be associated with eventual engagement: - Accepting autonomous choices completely - Making information available without any pressure - Not pursuing contact - Responding immediately if they initiate - Maintaining very long-term perspective
Observed CP plan language in cases where relationship was eventually accessed: "Assessment indicates current resistance to professional engagement. Plan maintains one named professional available at low frequency. Contact will not be pursued. If young person initiates contact, immediate response will be provided. Team will remain alert to any shift in presentation that indicates a change in what engagement is possible."
Approaches observed to be associated with positive engagement: - Providing transparent explanations of reasoning - Sharing research and evidence openly - Explaining professional thinking clearly - Allowing them to reach own conclusions - Tolerating questioning as their processing style
Observed CP plan language in cases showing sustained engagement: "This young person is highly analytical and will not engage without understanding reasoning. All concerns will be explained with evidence. Research on [relevant topics] will be shared. Young person will be given time to process and reach own conclusions. Pressure tactics which may trigger resistance will be avoided."
Approaches observed to be associated with gradual engagement: - Being still and predictable rather than pursuing - Allowing them to control pace completely - Not pursuing when they retreat - Maintaining consistent presence without any pressure - Using trauma-informed approaches throughout
Observed CP plan language in cases showing gradual engagement: "Assessment indicates fearful attachment pattern likely due to trauma. Approach appears to trigger panic responses. Plan creates safe, predictable environment. One consistent professional available at fixed times. No pursuit when young person retreats. Patience is essential."
Approaches observed to be associated with eventual engagement: - Respecting their "no" completely - Stopping all pursuit of contact - Acknowledging resistance as legitimate given history - Maintaining minimal distant availability - Taking very long-term perspective—they may eventually initiate
Observed CP plan language in cases where relationship was eventually accessed: "Assessment indicates oppositional resistance following years of professional involvement. Current attempts appear counterproductive. Plan acknowledges contact will not be pursued. One professional sends quarterly text confirming availability. If young person initiates, immediate response will be provided. Otherwise choice to refuse support will be respected."
The typology's practical value lies in its potential to inform CP planning. If a professional can identify—even tentatively—which response pattern a young person is likely presenting, the plan can be shaped around approaches more likely to be effective with that individual, rather than defaulting to a standard strategy that may work well with some young people but poorly with others.
This is not about writing plans that give up. It is about writing plans that are more likely to achieve their purpose: improving safety. A plan that channels all engagement through a young person's trusted Youth Worker (because the assessment suggests a Elephant pattern) is more likely to produce results than a plan that introduces five professionals simultaneously. A plan that creates opportunities for positive peer connection (because the assessment suggests a Zebra pattern) is more likely to shift behaviour than one focused on individual one-to-one work. A plan that provides transparent information and allows time for the young person to reach their own conclusions (because the assessment suggests a Raven pattern) is more likely to produce genuine engagement than one that expects compliance without explanation.
In each case, the plan is still focused on improving safety. What changes is the route chosen to get there.
For young people who appear responsive to trusted relationships (Elephants/Roosters):
Planning might focus on protecting and utilising the key relationship. Where a young person has formed a meaningful connection with one professional, the plan can channel safeguarding work through that relationship rather than diluting it across multiple professionals. Progress is measured by the depth and quality of that connection, and by the gradual influence it enables.
For young people whose behaviour is shaped by peer dynamics (Zebras/Cows):
Planning might focus on shifting the social environment. Where peer group composition appears to be driving risk, the plan can focus on creating opportunities for alternative positive peer connections—group programmes, team activities, peer mentoring—rather than attempting to isolate the young person from all peer contact.
For young people who require consequences to motivate change (Wildebeest/Sheep):
Planning might focus on maintaining boundaries whilst remaining available. Where a young person is not currently motivated to change, the plan can acknowledge this honestly whilst ensuring that when consequences create motivation, professional support is immediately accessible. The plan does not cushion consequences prematurely, but it does not withdraw care either.
For young people who require intellectual engagement (Panthers/Ravens):
Planning might focus on transparency and evidence. Where a young person will not engage without understanding the reasoning, the plan can build in open sharing of professional concerns, relevant research, and clear explanation of why particular risks have been identified. The young person is given space to process this and reach their own conclusions.
For young people who require novel engagement (Giraffes/Goats):
Planning might focus on offering something genuinely interesting. Where standard interventions have been rejected, the plan can explore creative, challenging, or intellectually stimulating opportunities that provide a context for relationship-building without feeling like conventional support.
For young people who are currently resistant to engagement (Leopards/Cats, Gazelles/Horses, Rhinos/Donkeys):
Planning might focus on maintaining a thread of availability whilst not intensifying approaches that are increasing resistance. This is not giving up—it is recognising that sustained, low-pressure availability, combined with immediate responsiveness if the young person initiates contact, may be the approach most likely to preserve future relationship possibility. The plan remains active, reviews continue, and the professional team remains alert to any shift in the young person's presentation that might indicate a change in what is possible.
Effective plans for this population tend to share certain characteristics regardless of typology. They are honest about what is and is not achievable with this particular young person at this particular time. They identify the specific approach most likely to be effective based on observed response patterns. They measure progress in terms of relationship quality and incremental risk reduction rather than expecting immediate behaviour change. And they remain open to reassessment—because response patterns can shift with stress, with relationship, and with circumstance.
A further dimension that effective plans tend to incorporate—whether explicitly or implicitly—is realistic assessment of functioning level. A plan written for a young person whose attachment style is operating at mild level can reasonably expect engagement, collaborative work, and gradual progress. A plan written for a young person at marked functioning must acknowledge that direct engagement is currently beyond what any approach can achieve, and must focus instead on maintaining availability and reducing conditions that sustain marked functioning. The question is not whether the plan is ambitious enough but whether it is calibrated to what is currently possible—and whether it remains open to reassessment as functioning levels shift.
Whilst this framework is primarily focused on safeguarding autonomous adolescents, practitioners have observed that these patterns appear across many contexts involving attempts to influence autonomous individuals.
The Leopard/Cat-type senior clinician who rejects management directives: - Approaches involving increased emails, mandatory training, or performance management have been observed to increase resistance - Approaches involving provision of evidence, respect for autonomy, and allowing own conclusions have been observed to maintain relationship
The Zebra/Cow-type team member influenced by negative staff culture: - Approaches involving individual supervision about attitude have been observed to have limited effect - Approaches involving creation of positive peer influences and building of team culture have been observed to shift behaviour
The Rhino/Donkey-type staff member who resists every change: - Approaches involving increased pressure or consequence threats have been observed to increase resistance - Approaches involving stopping pursuit, waiting, and respecting resistance as legitimate have occasionally been observed to eventually allow engagement
The Panther/Raven-type student who questions everything: - Often labelled "difficult" or "disruptive" - May actually need intellectual engagement rather than compliance - May become highly engaged students when need for evidence is respected
The Gazelle/Horse-type student with trauma background: - Traditional "firm boundaries" approaches have been observed to sometimes worsen outcomes - Approaches creating safety before expecting learning have been observed to sometimes allow gradual engagement - Patient, predictable environments have been observed to sometimes allow approach at student's pace
When introducing new practice approaches, staff responses appear to vary:
Standard change management—training sessions, mandatory deadlines—appears to assume everyone responds like Elephants or Zebras. The framework may suggest why this consistently produces mixed results.
Across all these contexts, the assessment consideration remains:
"Given this person's apparent attachment-based response pattern to influence attempts, what approach might align with their pattern?"
Rather than: - How can compliance be achieved? - How can resistance be overcome? - How can attitude be fixed?
But: - How do they appear to naturally respond to influence? - What approach appears to respect their response pattern? - When does influence appear currently impossible and require acceptance?
The framework requires careful ethical application:
Avoiding Determinism - Typologies describe patterns, not fixed categories. Individuals might demonstrate different patterns across contexts or shift patterns over time.
Resisting Labelling - The framework should inform approach, not create limiting labels that reduce individuals to categories.
Acknowledging Assessment Limitations - Professional assessment might misidentify patterns, particularly early in relationships.
Maintaining Purpose - Recognising that a particular approach is not currently working should prompt a reconsideration of approach, not a conclusion that no approach can work. The typology is a tool for finding a better lever, not for justifying withdrawal.
Cultural Sensitivity - Attachment patterns may manifest differently across cultural contexts; typologies should be applied with cultural awareness.
Recognising Dual Patterns and Complexity - Bifulco's research demonstrates that many individuals present with dual attachment styles rather than single patterns, reflecting complex developmental histories involving multiple caregivers, varied relationship experiences, or traumatic disruptions (Bifulco & Thomas, 2012; Bifulco et al., 2002b). The eight typologies presented here necessarily simplify these complex presentations for practical recognition purposes, but practitioners must remain alert to:
A young person might present as Leopard in some relationships whilst demonstrating Raven characteristics in others. Under stress, typical Giraffe patterns might give way to Rhino opposition. Following trauma, Elephant characteristics might be overwhelmed by fearful responses producing Leopard patterns. The typologies offer recognition frameworks, not diagnostic categories, and should be applied with awareness that human attachment organisation is typically more complex than any single categorisation can capture.
Howe warns specifically about misuse of attachment concepts in social work practice, noting that oversimplified application can lead to harmful interventions, particularly when concepts like disorganised attachment are misunderstood or rigidly applied without appreciation for relationship and developmental context (Howe, 2024). The same caution applies here: these typologies should inform flexible, relationship-based practice, not replace sophisticated assessment with categorical thinking.
Power Analysis - The framework addresses response to influence but should not obscure how power dynamics, systemic inequality, and structural barriers shape behaviour beyond attachment patterns.
The challenge of improving safety for young people aged 16 and over on Child Protection Plans is real, and it is not going away. This population is growing as a proportion of children in need, and the traditional tools of child protection carry less weight as young people exercise more autonomy. Frontline professionals working with this group are not failing when they find standard approaches ineffective. They are encountering a situation where the right approach depends on understanding the individual young person's response pattern—and where mismatching approach to pattern means effort without effect.
The original observation that prompted this framework was simple: zebras move as a herd, wildebeest only move when the lion is charging. Different animals respond to influence differently. The same is true of young people. A young person who responds to a trusted relationship needs to be led through that relationship. One who responds to peer dynamics needs the social environment to shift. One who will only move when reality presses in needs boundaries maintained, not consequences cushioned. One who requires intellectual conviction needs evidence, not emotional appeal. One who is currently unreachable by any approach needs a thread of availability maintained, not an intensified strategy that increases resistance.
The eight typologies—Elephants and Roosters, Zebras and Cows, Wildebeest and Sheep, Giraffes and Goats, Leopards and Cats, Panthers and Ravens, Gazelles and Horses, Rhinos and Donkeys—offer frontline professionals a way of reading which pattern they are working with, and therefore which approach is most likely to improve safety. They are not a guarantee. They do not solve the challenge. But they offer something genuinely useful: a framework for thinking about why a particular young person responds the way they do, and what might actually work.
The functioning spectrum and authenticity dimension add a further layer of practical value. They help professionals understand not only which approach might work but why a particular approach is not working—and whether the difficulty lies in the approach itself or in the young person's current availability to engage. A young person presenting as Leopard may be an angry-dismissive individual operating at marked functioning whose Adult is currently inaccessible, rather than someone who is fundamentally resistant to all support. Recognising this distinction does not change the immediate approach—which remains maintaining availability without pressure—but it reframes what that approach represents. It is not giving up. It is waiting for the functioning level to shift, for the conditions that sustain marked functioning to ease, for the script to loosen its grip sufficiently that present-moment engagement becomes possible again. When it does, the professional who has remained available without agenda, without pressure, without hooking into the Parent-Child dynamic that would have intensified the script, is the one most likely to be trusted.
For Elephants and Roosters, investment in trusted relationships appears associated with sustained engagement. For Zebras and Cows, creation of positive peer influences appears associated with behaviour change. For Wildebeest and Sheep, allowing consequences to work appears eventually associated with motivation. For Giraffes and Goats, making things interesting appears associated with engagement. For Leopards and Cats, respecting autonomy appears associated with maintained future relationship possibility. For Panthers and Ravens, providing evidence appears associated with intellectual engagement. For Gazelles and Horses, creating safety appears associated with gradual approach. For Rhinos and Donkeys, sustained availability without pressure appears occasionally associated with eventual self-initiated contact.
Underpinning the authenticity dimension—and therefore underpinning the functioning spectrum and the practical value of the typologies themselves—is a neurological reality that the trilogy's first two essays establish in sequence. The Three-Pound Supercomputer (Young, 2025) sets the computational foundations; Living in a Fabricated World (Young, 2026) traces what those foundations produce when predictive models are built from early experience. For a reader arriving here having followed that journey, the connection will be immediate. For a reader encountering it here for the first time, it is worth stating explicitly, because it is the foundation upon which the authenticity dimension rests.
The brain does not passively receive reality. It actively constructs it—generating what a person experiences as the present moment from predictive models built through experience. Under ordinary circumstances, those models are continuously updated by incoming sensory data. Current experience reaches the person, the models adjust, and the individual engages with what is actually happening now. But when historical experience has been sufficiently intense or sustained—when early caregiving environments have built predictive models powerful enough to override present-moment input—the brain begins generating a version of reality assembled from the past rather than the present. The person is not choosing to ignore current information. Their brain is not currently generating current information. It is generating a version of reality constructed from historical pattern—and that version is neurologically indistinguishable from genuine present-moment experience.
This is what the inauthentic response describes throughout this essay. At marked functioning, the young person is not resisting engagement. They are not being difficult. They are experiencing a fabricated world—a version of reality built entirely from historical pattern, in which the professional's offer of support genuinely feels like the threat that past experience taught them it would be. The life script is not a failure of character. It is the brain doing precisely what it was built to do: generating reality from the models that experience has provided. When those models were built in environments of rejection, conditional care, or threat, the fabricated world they produce is one in which trust is dangerous and autonomy is survival.
The functioning spectrum maps onto this precisely. Mild functioning is the point at which present-moment input is still reaching the person—historical models are present but not dominant, and the Adult ego state remains accessible. Moderate functioning is where those models begin to override current input—the script starts running, present reality starts being interpreted through past pattern rather than assessed on its own terms. Marked functioning is where the override is complete. The fabricated world has become the world the person is experiencing. And until the conditions that sustain that fabrication ease—until threat reduces sufficiently for the brain to begin updating its models from present-moment experience rather than historical pattern—no approach, however well matched to the typology, can connect. Not because the young person does not want support. Because they are not currently in the same reality as the professional offering it.
The trilogy is designed to be read in order, though each essay stands well enough alone.
From Zebras to Ravens, the typology offers a practical tool: read the pattern, assess the functioning level at which it is operating, consider whether the response is grounded in present reality or driven by past pattern, match the approach accordingly, measure progress realistically, and remain available. It may not transform outcomes overnight. But in safeguarding work with young people who are exercising real autonomy, knowing which lever to pull—and which to leave alone—may be amongst the most useful things a professional can bring to the work.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berne, E. (1961). Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy. New York: Grove Press.
Berne, E. (1964). Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships. New York: Grove Press.
Berne, E. (1972). Scripts People Live: Transactional Analysis of Life Scripts. New York: Grove Press.
Bifulco, A., Moran, P. M., Ball, C., & Bernazzani, O. (2002). Adult attachment style. I: Its relationship to clinical depression. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 37(2), 50-59.
Bifulco, A., Moran, P. M., Ball, C., & Lillie, A. (2002b). Adult attachment style. II: Its relationship to psychosocial depressive-vulnerability. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 37(2), 60-67.
Bifulco, A., & Thomas, G. (2012). Understanding adult attachment in family relationships: Research, assessment and intervention. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and Anger. Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and Depression. Basic Books.
Cannon, W. B. (1929). Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear and Rage (2nd ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Clarkson, P. (1995). The therapeutic relationship. London: Whurr.
Department for Education. (2025). Children in need: Reporting year 2025. London: Department for Education.
Department of Health and Social Care. (2024). Children and young people's substance misuse treatment statistics 2023 to 2024. London: DHSC.
Fairbairn, W. R. D. (1952). Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Freud, S. (1923). The Ego and the Id. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19, pp. 3-66). Hogarth Press.
Holmes, D., & Smale, E. (2018). Transitional safeguarding: Adolescence to adulthood - sharing information and avoiding cliff edges. Dartington: Research in Practice.
Holmes, J. (1997). Attachment, autonomy, intimacy: Some clinical implications of attachment theory. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 70(3), 231-248.
Howe, D. (1995). Attachment Theory for Social Work Practice. Macmillan.
Howe, D. (2005). Child Abuse and Neglect: Attachment, Development and Intervention. Palgrave Macmillan.
Howe, D. (2024, August 21). 'When I started, we'd be involved with a family for years': David Howe on four decades in social work. Community Care. Retrieved from https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2024/08/21/david-howe-on-four-decades-in-social-work/
Howe, D., & Betts, L. (2023). Attachment Across the Lifecourse: A Brief Introduction (2nd ed.). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Howe, D., Brandon, M., Hinings, D., & Schofield, G. (1999). Attachment Theory, Child Maltreatment and Family Support: A Practice and Assessment Model. Palgrave Macmillan.
Klein, M. (1932). The Psycho-Analysis of Children. Hogarth Press.
Klein, M. (1946). Notes on some schizoid mechanisms. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 27, 99-110.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment pattern. In T. B. Brazelton & M. W. Yogman (Eds.), Affective development in infancy (pp. 95-124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
National Audit Office. (2015). Care leavers' transition to adulthood. London: NAO.
Perry, B. D., & Winfrey, O. (2021). What Happened to You? Conversations on Trauma, Resilience, and Healing. Flatiron Books.
Schore, A. N. (2003). Affect Regulation and the Repair of the Self. W. W. Norton & Company.
Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42). Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents
Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins, W. A. (2005). The Development of the Person: The Minnesota Study of Risk and Adaptation from Birth to Adulthood. Guilford Press.
Stein, M. (2006). Research review: Young people leaving care. Child & Family Social Work, 11(3), 273-279.
Winnicott, D. W. (1960). The theory of the parent-infant relationship. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 41, 585-595.
Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment: Studies in the Theory of Emotional Development. International Universities Press.
Young, S. (2025). Eric Berne's transactional analysis: From Freudian theory to observable interaction. YoungFamilyLife.
Young, S. (2025). Freud's structural model for frontline family support: Understanding the unintegrated legacy of early infancy. YoungFamilyLife.
Young, S. (2025). The reality: A children's services case study. YoungFamilyLife.
Young, S. (2026). Living in a fabricated world. YoungFamilyLife.
Word Count: 19,000 words
Topics: #AttachmentTheory #ChildProtection #Safeguarding #AdolescentServices #TransactionalAnalysis #Bifulco #YoungPeople #ChildProtectionPlanning #FamilyEducation #ProfessionalPractice
© 2026 Steve Young and YoungFamilyLife Ltd. All rights reserved.
This essay was developed collaboratively using AI assistance to research academic sources and refine content structure, while maintaining the author's original voice, insights, and "Information Without Instruction" philosophy. No part of this essay may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the copyright holders, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.
For permission requests, contact: steve@youngfamilylife.com