Closeness Does Not Always Mean Security

For years, the relationship between a dog and their guardian was assessed mainly through the lens of separation. The guardian leaves, the dog reacts in some way — or does not react at all — and conclusions are drawn about the quality of the bond. The problem is that similar behaviors can mean very different things.

A dog who constantly stays close to the guardian is not necessarily securely attached. That same dog may just as well struggle with exploration, have difficulty tolerating distance, or regulate themselves only when the human is very close. From the outside, it may look like a strong and healthy bond. In reality, though, it may reflect dependence rather than security.

The reverse is true as well. A dog who chooses to stay close to the guardian is not automatically doing so because they cannot function on their own. Preferring closeness does not, by itself, mean that the relationship is unbalanced. Sometimes it does. But not always. And that is exactly why the reaction to separation alone is not enough to understand how the relationship is actually organized.

It is becoming increasingly clear that we need to look not only at what happens when the guardian leaves, but above all at how the dog and the human function together in ordinary everyday life.

Can the dog move away and attend to their own affairs?

Do they return to the guardian on their own initiative, rather than only when they feel distressed?

Does closeness provide support, or does it limit autonomy?

Is there flexibility in the relationship — on both sides?

These kinds of questions may tell us more about the bond than the reaction to separation itself.

From this perspective, separation does not so much create the problem as reveal what was already present in the organization of the relationship. Separation distress does not automatically mean an insecure attachment structure. It may be one expression of it, but not necessarily. And conversely, a dog who appears very attached is not automatically functioning in a safe and stable way.

This matters in practice too. If we too quickly equate closeness with security, we may overlook a dog who does not actually feel safe, but simply cannot cope with distance. And if we treat every difficulty at separation as proof of a “disordered bond,” we may end up oversimplifying a problem that in reality calls for a more nuanced view.

A relationship with a dog does not reveal itself only in moments of crisis. It shows itself above all in everyday life together — in how much freedom, flexibility, and capacity there is to move apart without losing the sense of safety.

That may tell us far more about the bond than the moment the door closes.

---

Kim, J.-k. (2026). A non-separation diagnostic framework for assessing canine attachment structure. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 13, Article 1802205.