There is a decent bibliography in the article on encyclopedia.com

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3045300128.html

Everything you ever wanted to know about adult attachment:

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2010). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford Press.

Dear Zbigniew

You say that you are looking for a text about attachment styles and their associations with needs (especially in adulthood).

As you certainly know, attachment theory has become a dominant paradigm in the field of interpersonal relationships in general, and the dynamics of long-term and short-term interpersonal relationships between humans in particular, since the seminal work of J. Bowlby [see, for example, Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment (1st ed.). London, UK: Penguin; Bowlby, J. (1980). Loss. London, UK: Penguin; Bowlby, J. (1984). Attachment (2nd ed.). London, UK: Penguin] and M. Ainsworth [see, for instance, Ainsworth, M., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological to personality development. American Psychologist, 46, 333-341. Ainsworth, M. (1984). Attachment. In N. Endler & J. McVicker Hunt (Eds.), Personality and the behavioural disorders (2nd ed., pp. 559–602). New York, NY: Wiley]. Since then, the attachment theory has given rise to an immense literature. Most of this literature has to do with the strange situation originally designed by M. Ainsworth and the types of attachment in infants, children, adolescents and adults.

 As you also know, initially were identified and described three types of attachment in infants: secure attachment, insecure ambivalent/resistant attachment, and insecure avoidant attachment. According Bowlby (1980), among other things, an individual who has experienced a secure attachment “is likely to possess a representational model of attachment figures as being available, responsive, and helpful” (p. 242). According to Ainsworth [see Ainsworth, M., & Bell, S. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41, 49-67), insecure ambivalent children fail, among other things, to develop any feelings of security from the attachment figure(s). As such, they exhibit difficulty moving away from the attachment figure(s) to explore novel surroundings. When distressed, they are difficult to console, that is, they are not comforted by interaction with the attachment figure(s). This behavior is a result of an inconsistent level of response to their needs from the primary caregiver. Among other things, insecure avoidant children do not orientate to their attachment figure(s) while exploring their environment. As Behrens, Hesse, and Main note [see Behrens, K, Hesse, E., & Main, M. (2007). Mothers' attachment status as determined by the Adult Attachment Interview predicts their 6-year-olds' reunion responses: A study conducted in Japan. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1553] those children are very independent of the attachment figure(s) both physically and emotionally. Accordingly, they do not seek contact with the attachment figure when distressed. Such children are likely to have a caregiver who is insensitive and rejecting of their needs. The attachment figure may withdraw from helping during difficult tasks and is often unavailable on occasions of emotional distress. In 1990, Mary Main and Judith Solomon [see, Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth strange situation In M. Greenberg., D., Cicchetti., & M. Cummings (Eds.) (1990), Attachment in the preschool years: theory, research, and intervention (pp. 121-160). Chicago: University of Chicago Press] proposed a fourth type or style of attachment: Disorganized/disoriented attachment. Infants’ behavior in the strange situation coded as disorganized/disoriented includes, for example, overt manifestations of fear; contradictory behaviors or affects occurring simultaneously or sequentially. Stereotypic, asymmetric, misdirected or jerky movements are also frequent in disorganized/disoriented individuals.

As you certainly know, as is the case of any grand psychological theory (e.g., Freud’s, Piaget’s Skinner’s approaches), attachment theory has also its discontents. One of the main critics of Bowlby's attachment theory is J. Harris [see Harris, J. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do.  New York: Free Press]. He remarks that people often assume that kind, honest, and respectful parents will have kind, honest, and respectful children, and parents that are rude, liars, and disrespectful will have children that are the same way. This may not be the case. Harris (1998) believes that parents are not alone in shaping their children’s personality or character. A child's peers may have more influence on him/her than their parents. For example, children whose parents were immigrants can continue to speak their parents’ native language at home, but can also learn a new language and speak it without an accent, while the parents’ accent remains. Children learn these things from their peers because they want to fit in.

Backing to your question, even an Internet search will give you access to a myriad of papers, chapters, and books elaborating on your question and posting. For example, although being devoted to the disorganized/disoriented attachment style in infants, the paper by Robbie Duschinsky (2015). The emergence of the disorganized /disoriented (d) attachment classification, 1979–1982. History of Psychology, 18, (1), 32–46), has a lot of references to the attachment theory even in adults. Because of this, you can benefit from reading it.  Of course, you can find better papers on the topic of your question.

 I hope that a have got your question, and that my considerations on it are of help to you.

Best regards.