Is it really the same type, or the same pattern?
It's rarely the physical type doing the work. What usually repeats is one of four measurable relationship patterns — the same emotional unavailability, the same version of being chased, the same difficulty trusting someone means what they say — and Bearing's Relationships branch is built to name which one is yours, not just gesture at "attachment issues" in the abstract.
A relationship pattern is a consistent filter for who feels compatible once you're actually in something with them — distinct from a physical type, which only affects who catches your attention in the first place. The type is what you notice. The pattern is what happens next, and it's the part that repeats.
The four patterns, and what "same type" looks like in each
Bearing's Relationships branch scores two dimensions — anxiety (worry about whether a connection is secure) and avoidance (discomfort with closeness) — and maps the combination to one of four named patterns, not a single spectrum:
- Open (low anxiety, low avoidance) — closeness feels natural, not threatening. This is the one group where "why do I keep dating the same type" often doesn't apply the same way, because there's no strong anxious or avoidant pull doing the selecting in the first place.
- Independent (low anxiety, high avoidance) — self-reliant by orientation, comfortable alone, not preoccupied with relationships. The repeating pattern here tends to be partners who ask for more closeness than feels comfortable, or a habit of stepping back right as things get serious.
- Attached (high anxiety, low avoidance) — wants closeness and doesn't shy away from it, but regularly worries whether the connection is mutual, solid, or enough. The concern isn't distance, it's security — so the repeating pattern tends to be partners who keep that question open rather than settling it.
- Cautious (high anxiety, high avoidance) — simultaneously wants connection and keeps distance as protection against it. The repeating pattern is often push-pull: drawn toward someone, then pulling back once it starts to feel real, sometimes with a partner whose own inconsistency confirms the instinct to protect.
These are Bearing's own four categories, not a rebrand of a textbook attachment-style list — and the "same type" you keep running into is usually one of these four doing the selecting, not a coincidence.
Where this connects to what's actually measured
Two related traits are worth naming, because both get confused with the relationship pattern above even though they're measuring something narrower. Trust, an Agreeableness facet, measures how readily you assume good faith in others generally — not specifically in the context of closeness and abandonment. And Anxiety, a Neuroticism facet, measures how much you worry across situations broadly, not attachment-specific fear of losing a connection. The two pairs often travel together in the same person, but a repeating relationship pattern can show up even in someone who scores as generally trusting and generally low-anxiety elsewhere in the report — which is part of why Bearing scores the Relationships branch as its own thing rather than assuming it from Big Five facets alone.
Does knowing your pattern actually change anything?
Not by itself, and it's worth being honest about that rather than promising otherwise. Awareness doesn't erase a pattern — what the research on attachment change points to is a relationship that consistently doesn't confirm the old expectation, sustained over real time, or therapy specifically aimed at the pattern itself. What awareness does reliably do is turn a repeating feeling of bad luck into a named, specific pattern — which at minimum stops it from feeling random, and at most gives you something concrete to bring into the next relationship's early conversations.
Bearing's Relationships branch shows which of these four patterns you land in, alongside your Trust and Anxiety facet scores — a more specific starting point than "I have a type" for seeing what's actually repeating.
Sources: Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365.