The theory that people who tend to have secure attachment will later on in life have a higher rate of well-being, leaves out too many unaccounted for factors. For example, the environment in which a child is raised would play a huge role in this. A child can develop a secure attachment with his mother and that same child can also be raised numerous environments ranging from a rich family vs poor family, good neighborhood vs impoverished neighborhood, etc. Given the amount of factors that can play a role, we can have endless possibilities on how they affect the child's well-being. This is what makes us human, if this theory held true than every child that experienced secure attachment would essentially be the same. I am sure there have been exceptions though. Ever hear about children who were raised in a rich environment and loved as a child and developed secure attachment, yet grew up to encounter drug issues, relationship issues, rebellion against their parents, etc. The theory is too cookie cutter and people are not that perfect, which means we can not perfectly define them.
