Many people find themselves constantly pouring love into a relationship cup that never seems to feel full. Loving someone who is emotionally unavailable is painful and confusing, and the exhaustion that comes from trying to connect while being kept at arm’s length deserves acknowledgment.

When it comes to navigating your partner’s emotional unavailability, understand this: emotional unavailability isn’t about you. It’s a complex pattern rooted in psychology, past experiences, and deeply ingrained protective mechanisms. Let’s explore what’s really happening beneath the surface and, more importantly, how you can navigate this challenging dynamic with clarity and self-compassion.

What Does Emotional Unavailability Really Mean?

Emotional unavailability describes a pattern where someone consistently struggles to be present, vulnerable, or intimate in a relationship. They are emotionally distant, often reluctant to share feelings, resistant to deeper conversations, and unable to commit to the relationship’s growth.

This is different from the occasional bad day or needing space after a stressful week. We all have moments when we’re less available emotionally.

Why Are Some People Emotionally Unavailable?

Understanding the “why” doesn’t excuse hurtful behavior, but it can help you see the situation more clearly and make better decisions for yourself.

How Do I Know If My Partner Is Emotionally Unavailable?

If you’re wondering if your partner is emotionally unavailable, look for these consistent patterns:

Can Emotionally Unavailable People Change?

Here’s the truth that’s both hopeful and hard: people can change, but only if they want to and are willing to do the work. Change requires self-awareness, acknowledging the problem, and a commitment to personal growth, either through therapy or another healthy avenue.

The question isn’t just “can they change?” but “are they actively trying to change?” There’s a vast difference between:

How Can I Cope With an Emotionally Unavailable Partner?

If you’re dealing with an emotionally unavailable partner, here are strategies to protect your well-being:

What If I’m the Emotionally Unavailable One?

If you’re reading this and recognizing yourself in these signs, that’s ok. Awareness is the crucial first step, and emotional unavailability isn’t a character flaw: it’s a learned protective pattern that served you once but may now be limiting your capacity for deep connection.

Take the First Step in Coping & Growing

You deserve a relationship where you feel seen, valued, and emotionally met. Whether that means your current partner commits to growth and change, or you decide to seek that connection elsewhere, trust that your need for emotional intimacy is valid and worthy of fulfillment.

If you’re struggling with this dynamic, reaching out to a therapist who specializes in relationship issues can provide the support and clarity you need to move forward with confidence and start building your emotional intelligence.

Not sure where to start? Take our quiz to find out what you’re looking for and how trained professionals at GoodTherapy can help.

By Dr. Jocelyn Markowicz, PhD, Psychologist

Attachment Hope for Couples: How to Improve Your Security Odds

You walk into the room and lock eyes with the most gorgeous human being you have ever seen. This individual locks eyes with you as well. You begin talking and realize that the chemistry between you is intense. You plan a date. You have several great dates. You fall in love and begin to talk about spending the rest of your lives together. You have the wedding. You go on the honeymoon. You begin to live your day-to-day lives together. (Perhaps not quite in that order.) But then, as you settle into shared lives, you notice that something is changing. The arguments are more frequent. The emotions are not all positive. Why does your partner leave when there is conflict? Why does your partner walk away when you need soothing? Why are they sometimes exhaustingly clingy and other times too independent? John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth offered an answer rooted in attachment styles to these questions. Several researchers after them offered solutions. I’d like to share them with you. 

The Evolution of a Relationship

It is important to acknowledge that it takes time for interpersonal patterns to emerge within a romantic relationship. A perception bias occurs when you first fall in love that naturally heightens your connection to your partner’s strengths and limits your awareness of their weaknesses. Thus, it is in day-to-day living that you develop more accurate perceptions of patterns that are problematic. 

Why You Relate the Way You Do

In the 1960s, John Bowlby asserted that we learn positive and negative ways of relating based on our parent-child experiences. Our ways of relating are designed to strengthen our bond with our attachment figures (parents/caregivers) growing up. They help us survive. An attachment behavioral system gradually emerges wherein we attempt to regulate our emotions and behaviors toward an attachment figure. To do this, Bowlby (1980) asserted that the attachment system essentially asks the following fundamental question: Is the attachment figure nearby, accessible, and attentive? According to Bowlby (1980), an individual who has experienced a secure attachment is likely to view attachment figures as available, responsive, and helpful. An insecurely attached individual would view attachment figures as inaccessible, untrustworthy, and unreliable.

Different Attachment Styles

Ainsworth expanded on Bowlby’s attachment behavioral system and introduced specific attachment styles that explain our attachment behaviors. She outlined three specific attachment styles: (1) secure attachment and two insecure attachment styles: (1) anxious-resistant, and (2) avoidant (Ainsworth, 1979). In adult romantic relationships, the insecurely attached adult who is anxious-resistant would be dependent on their partner and yet reject their soothing attempts. The insecurely attached adult who is avoidant would not seek emotional or physical comfort from their partner when experiencing emotional distress. 

Bowlby and Ainsworth helped us to understand that our way of relating to others is guided by our early attachment experiences, but do we indeed exhibit the same attachment behaviors in our adult romantic relationships?

Further Research into Attachment Styles 

Hazen and Shaver (1987) evaluated Bowlby’s theoretical premise that early attachment behaviors extend to adulthood and are relatively stable. They conducted research and found that adults also reported the three attachment categories that Ainsworth determined (secure, anxious-resistant, and avoidant). Their research identified that romantic relationships are attachment bonds and share similar attachment behaviors that characterize parent-child interactions. In essence, Bowlby and Ainsworth were right to suggest that we can look at our adult relationships and evaluate our partner’s attachment behaviors based on their childhood attachment experiences. 

Are People Stuck Forever in Patterns from Childhood? 

What happens if you partner with someone with an insecure attachment style? Can their attachment style become secure? 

Researchers had the same questions about whether or not early attachment behaviors could be changed in adulthood. Findings across several studies did indicate that while early attachment style is relatively stable (Kim, Baek, & Park, 2021), attachment behaviors can change (Tmej, AMA et al., 2020; Sims, 2000; Rimane, Steil, Renneberg, & Rosner’s, 2020; Overall, Simpson, & Struthers, 2013; Gazder & Stranton, 2010; Park, Johnson, MacDonald, & Impett, 2019). Therein lies the hope for the couple. So, back to the question, what happens if you partner with an insecurely attached individual? How can you increase your secure attachment odds in your relationship?

Distress in romantic relationships is the leading cause for adults to seek psychological services (Bradbury, 1998). There are specific interventions that increase attachment security or reduce the negative impact of insecure attachment behaviors in romantic relationships. The following interventions are supported by empirical examination.

Transference-Focused Therapy

Transference-focused therapy (TFT) is a therapeutic intervention that aims to reduce impulsivity, stabilize mood, and improve interpersonal and occupational functioning. The intervention is specifically designed for individuals who struggle with borderline personality disorder. Trauma can impact the internalized representations of personality. It is not uncommon for individuals to develop maladaptive personality traits in response to trauma. Trauma impacts attachment bonds. TFT is a great choice for an individual partner in a couple dyad who may also struggle with borderline personality. A recent study found that individuals who participated in TFT moved towards securely attached with some preoccupied behaviors away from insecurely attached with preoccupied behaviors (Tmej, AMA et al., 2020)

Emotionally Focused Therapy

Emotionally focused therapy (EFT) for couples focuses on reshaping distressed couples’ structured, repetitive interactions and the emotional responses that evoke partners and foster the development of a secure emotional bond (Jonson, 1996; Jonson, 1999). The EFT model assumes that the negative emotions and interactional cycles typical of distressed couples represent a struggle for secure attachment (Bowlby, 1969). Sims (2000) randomized 26 couples in which at least one partner had been rated as insecurely attached to EFT or a waitlist control group. Couples in the EFT treatment condition increased their attachment security (and decreased attachment-related avoidance) more than the control couples. 

Trauma-Focused Cognitive Processing Therapy

Trauma-focused cognitive processing therapy (CPT) focuses on changing the dysfunctional beliefs associated with trauma. Trauma during our early attachment years impacts our attachment functioning, thereby shaping how we related to others in romantic relationships. CPT offers hope for couples in that an insecurely attached partner, who has been the victim of trauma, can participate in this mode of treatment to improve functioning. In Rimane, Steil, Renneberg, and Rosner’s (2020) study, individuals who participated in CPT experienced reduced avoidance attachment (insecure) behaviors when assessed post-treatment.

Dyadic Regulation Processes

Dyadic regulation processing occurs in couples therapy and is designed to improve attachment-relevant dyadic interactions between them. Applying the Dyadic Regulation Processing Model, researchers evaluated how partners can buffer the impact of their partner’s anxious resistant or avoidant behaviors due to their insecure attachments. Overall, Simpson and Struthers (2013) videotaped romantic couples discussing relationship problems identified by one partner who wanted changes in the other partner. Results indicated that insecurely attached partners whose partners displayed more softening exhibited less anger and withdrawal, and their discussions were more successful. These partners buffered their insecurely attached partner’s responses by learning to be sensitive to their autonomy needs, validating their viewpoint, and acknowledging their constructive efforts and good qualities.

Partner Relationship Mindfulness

General mindfulness is defined as the awareness of what is happening in the moment. In their study, Gazder and Stranton (2010) defined relationship mindfulness (RM) as open or receptive attention to and awareness of what is taking place internally and externally in a current relationship. They found that an individual’s own daily relationship mindfulness did not buffer the effects of their own insecure attachment on same-day relationship behaviors, but their partner’s daily relationship mindfulness did. In essence, you can buffer the impact of your partner’s insecure attachment behaviors by increasing your own relationship mindfulness. Therapy is a great place to learn how to practice relationship mindfulness techniques.

Partner with Someone with a Secure Attachment Style

As outlined, various treatment interventions can move an individual and couple towards more secure attachment relating. At this point, you may be thinking that hope is only achieved within a therapeutic setting. I have good news for you. If you are a securely attached individual, you play an important role in your relationship with an insecurely attached partner. Experiencing secure behaviors within romantic relationships can reduce representations of insecure attachment style (Park, Johnson, MacDonald, & Impett, 2019). How romantic! Your secure attachment behaviors can provide a secure base for your insecurely attached partner to grow. In the context of your relationship, you and your partner will experience many life events together. In their most recent study, Fraley, Gillath, and Deboek (2020) found that life events could change attachment style presentations in adulthood, with some changes yielding an enduring pattern.  

What Lies within Our Power?

We cannot go back to our childhood and choose caregivers that would prevent us from developing an insecure attachment style. We, therefore, cannot prevent the impact of any dysfunctional early childhood attachment experiences on who we are, interpersonally, as adults. However, there is hope. We can increase our secure attachment odds by choosing partners who are securely attached. We can participate in couples therapy interventions. We can also offer a secure attachment base for our insecurely attached partner. Attachment styles do not equate to fixed potential in your relationship – there is always room for growth. 

If you’re ready to explore how therapy can help you and your relationship, click through to find a couples therapist near you.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1979). Attachment as related to mother-infant interaction. In Advances in the study of behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 1-51). Academic Press.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Loss: Sadness & depression. Attachment and Loss (vol. 3); (International psycho-analytical library no.109). London: Hogarth Press.

Bradbury, T. N. (1998). The developmental course of marital dysfunction. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gazder, T. & Stanton, S. C.E (2020). Partners’ Relationship Mindfulness Promotes Better Daily Relationship Behaviors for Insecurely Attached Individuals. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 5;17(19):7267.

Hazen, C., & Shaver, P.R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

Johnson, S. (1996). The practice of emotionally focused marital therapy: Creating connection. New York. Brunner/Mazel.

Johnson, S. (1999). Emotionally focused couples therapy: Straight to the heart. 

In J. Donovan (Ed.), Short term couple therapy (pp. 14-42). New York Guilford Press.

Fraley, R.C., Gillath, O. & Deboeck,P.R.(2020, August13).Do Life Events Lead to Changes in Adult Attachment Styles? A Naturalistic Longitudinal Investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 

Kim, S.‐H., Baek, M., & Park, S. (2021). Association of parent–child experiences with insecure attachment in adulthood: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Family Theory & Review.

Overall, N.C., & Simpson J. A.( 2013) Regulation processes in close relationships. In: Simpson JA, Campbell L, editors. The Oxford handbook of close relationships. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013. pp. 427–451.

Park, Y., Johnson, M. D., MacDonald, G., & Impett, E. A. (2019). Perceiving gratitude from a romantic partner predicts decreases in attachment anxiety. Developmental Psychology, 55(12), 2692–2700.

Rimane, E., Steil, R., Renneberg, B. & Rosner, R. (2020). Get secure soon: attachment in abused adolescents and young adults before and after trauma-focused cognitive processing therapy. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Sims A. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Ottawa; Canada: 2000. Working models of attachment: The impact of emotionally focused marital therapy.

Tmej, A., Fischer-Kern, M., Doering, S., Hörz-Sagstetter, S., Rentrop, M., & Buchheim, A. (2021). Borderline patients before and after one year of transference-focused psychotherapy (TFP): A detailed analysis of change of attachment representations. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 38(1), 12–21.

Social anxiety and avoidant personality disorder share some common features, but they are separate mental health conditions. Because the two conditions appear similar in many ways, it’s not uncommon for people to mistake one for the other.

Sometimes simply getting help is more important than having a specific diagnosis. But some people also find it beneficial to know what’s affecting them. In some cases, the best approach to treatment differs for separate mental health issues, so misdiagnosis can affect treatment and make it harder for a person to improve.

Social anxiety, or social phobia, is a specific type of anxiety characterized by a fear of social situations. People with social anxiety worry about embarrassing themselves in public or doing something that will cause others to judge them negatively. It’s fairly common for people to feel nervous about doing something embarrassing in public, but the feelings of fear and anxiety that occur with social phobia can become so distressing they cause difficulty at work, school, or other parts of daily life. About 75% of people with social anxiety are between the ages of 8 and 15 when diagnosed.

Avoidant personality disorder is a cluster C personality disorder. Personality disorders are a specific kind of mental health issue where patterns of thought and behavior affect daily life, and those with personality disorders often experience difficulty in professional and personal life because they have a hard time understanding other people and common situations.

Levana Slabodnick, LISW-S, a therapist in Columbus, Ohio, notices one difference between social anxiety and avoidant personality may lie in how a person views their own experience. She explains, “A fundamental difference between social anxiety disorder and avoidant personality disorder relates to how the sufferer perceives their own pain. Those with anxiety understand on a basic level that their anxiety is irrational and that the world doesn’t judge them as harshly as they judge themselves. Those with APD, on the other hand, lack this insight. They hold deep rooted feelings of insecurity and worthlessness that they believe to be factual.”

People with avoidant personality often feel socially awkward and inferior to others. They tend to be very sensitive to criticism and rejection and often avoid making friends or participating in social events unless they are sure of their welcome. Feelings of shame or self-loathing are more strongly associated with avoidant personality than social anxiety. This condition is not often diagnosed in children, though it often develops in childhood.

Avoidant Personality Disorder vs. Social Anxiety

Social anxiety and avoidant personality share an intense fear of being embarrassed or judged in social situations. People might describe a person with either condition as shy, timid, awkward, or fearful.

Fear associated with these conditions can present in many ways, such as:

• Avoiding social situations
• Avoiding interactions with strangers
• Low self-esteem
• Shyness or timidity around other people
• Isolation from others or complete social withdrawal

Debate over whether avoidant personality is a more severe type of social anxiety exists among mental health experts. According to the fifth edition of the DSM, these issues are often diagnosed together and can overlap to the point where they might seem like different presentations of the same concern. But while an avoidant personality typically involves patterns of avoidance in most or all areas of life, social anxiety may only involve avoidance in a few specific situations. The DSM continues to categorize them separately.

Debate over whether avoidant personality is a more severe type of social anxiety exists among mental health experts.

The two issues continue to share similarities when it comes to risk factors. Genetic and environmental factors can contribute to the development of either condition. Avoidance can be a learned response. People might begin to avoid social situations after a negative experience, for example. Being shy as a child can also increase the likelihood that a person will go on to develop social anxiety or an avoidant personality, though being shy does not necessarily mean a person will develop either issue for certain.

Experiencing abuse, trauma, bullying, or other negative events in childhood can increase the risk for both social anxiety and avoidant personality. But neglect, particularly physical neglect, is a significant risk factor for avoidant personality. A 2015 study comparing the two conditions found that having disinterested caregivers, feeling rejected by caregivers, or not having enough affection in childhood was more common in people with avoidant personalities.

Certain risk factors do differ between the two conditions:

• Some research has suggested that an avoidant personality may be more likely when someone’s physical appearance changes after illness.
• Research suggests brain structure may contribute to anxiety. If your amygdala, which is believed to help regulate your response to fear, is very active, you may experience greater anxiety in certain situations than other people do.
• Having a parent or sibling with social anxiety makes it 2-6 times more likely a person will develop the condition, according to the DSM-5.

Should I Get Treatment for Social Anxiety or APD?

Therapy is generally recommended for both avoidant personality and social anxiety. Only a mental health professional can diagnose mental health issues. If you think you might have symptoms of either avoidant personality or social anxiety, making an appointment with a qualified therapist or counselor can be a good place to start.

Letting any potential counselors know your particular symptoms and describing your specific experience can help them decide whether they’re qualified to help you. Not every therapist has experience treating every mental health condition, but an ethical therapist will always let you know if they think another therapist might be more helpful.

Social anxiety is often treated with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). This therapy helps you identify thoughts that cause distress and affect you negatively. Once you identify them, you learn how to change them. You can do CBT alone, but some people find group therapy helpful.

Exposure-based CBT is a specific approach to CBT where you slowly expose yourself to feared situations. This approach often involves skills practice or role-playing techniques, both of which can help people get more comfortable interacting with others in the safe space of therapy.

According to a 2015 study, performing random acts of kindness for others led to a decrease in symptoms of social anxiety in study participants after 4 weeks.

While therapy can have great benefit, sometimes social anxiety doesn’t improve right away. If you are working with a counselor and still experience significant difficulty in your daily life, a psychiatrist may recommend medication, such as:

• SSRIs like Paxil or Zoloft
• SNRIs like Effexor XR
• Antidepressants
• Anti-anxiety medications

Anxiety medication can help relieve some symptoms of social anxiety, but it’s a good idea to continue with therapy at the same time, as therapy helps you learn how to cope with what you’re experiencing. This can have a more lasting effect on your symptoms.

Many people believe personality disorders are not treatable, but this isn’t the case. They can be difficult to treat, especially if you’ve had symptoms for a long time. But therapy can still be very helpful. People with avoidant personality often seek treatment when they experience loneliness and distress as a result of being unable to participate in social events.

Research has shown people with avoidant personality may do better in therapy if they have the support of family members.

Any kind of talking therapy can be helpful for avoidant personality. CBT is commonly used to treat this condition, but other helpful approaches include family and group therapy. Research has shown people with avoidant personality may do better in therapy if they have the support of family members. Group therapy can help people learn how to develop relationship and communication skills in a safe space, and it’s often recommended for treating personality disorders.

There’s no specific medication used to treat avoidant personality. However, antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications may help relieve some severe symptoms.

Conclusion

Social anxiety and avoidant personality have some similarities, and some approaches to treatment may be similar. Regardless of which condition you have, therapy can help. It’s important to reach out for help if you’re struggling with social situations. When social anxiety or avoidant personality go untreated, complications like depression, isolation, and substance abuse can develop. Some people may experience significant loneliness and distress.

Talking to a therapist can help you get a diagnosis. But you’ll also begin to learn ways to cope with the feelings you experience and explore methods of overcoming these feelings. Therapy can help you become more used to the company of others. In time, you may find it easier to participate in social situations.

If you need help finding a counselor in your area, our therapist directory is a good place to start. Remember, you aren’t alone!

References:

1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fifth edition. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association. 103-110.
2. Anxiety disorders. (2017, December 15). Cleveland Clinic. Retrieved from https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9536-anxiety-disorders
3. Avoidant personality disorder. (2017, November 20). Cleveland Clinic. Retrieved from https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9761-avoidant-personality-disorder
4. Eikenaes, I., Egeland, J., Hummelen, B., & Wilberg, T. (2015, March 27). Avoidant personality disorder versus social phobia: The significance of childhood neglect. PLoS One, 10(5). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122846
5. Kvarnstorm, E. (2016, April 6). Avoidant personality disorder goes beyond social anxiety. Bridges to Recovery. Retrieved from https://www.bridgestorecovery.com/blog/avoidant-personality-disorder-goes-beyond-social-anxiety
6. Lampe, L. (2016). Avoidant personality disorder as a social anxiety phenotype: Risk factors, associations and treatment. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 29(1), 64-69. doi: 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000211
7. Personality disorders. (2016, September 23). Mayo Clinic. Retrieved from https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/personality-disorders/symptoms-causes/syc-20354463
8. Smith, K. (2018, November 19). Avoidant personality disorder. Retrieved from https://www.psycom.net/avoidant-personality-disorder
9. Social anxiety disorder (social phobia). (2017, August 29). Mayo Clinic. Retrieved from https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/social-anxiety-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20353561
10. Trew, J. L., & Alden, L. E. (2015, June 5). Kindness reduces avoidance goals in socially anxious people. Motivation and Emotion, 39(6), 892–907. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11031-015-9499-5

Editor’s note: This article is the second in a two-part series. See Avoidant Attachment, Part 1: The Dependence Dilemma.

When we live in a continual state of freeze, we aren’t only hiding, we are living alone (even when we’re in a relationship). Focused on the preservation of Self and resources, driven by self-sufficiency and independence, we come to believe that outside support is not an option. From the outside, it may seem as if we are hoarding food, money, time, words, emotions, and so on. It can also be framed as a conservation of resources in a closed (isolated) system that does not expect any exchange of resources between systems.

With limited resources, efficiency becomes paramount. Many people on the avoidant end of the attachment spectrum may come to depend on the creation and maintenance of a predictable and efficient routine that does not require energy expenditure on avoidable and unresolvable situations like interpersonal conflict.

The Myth of Functional Dissociation

The freeze state, which prepares us to hold and preserve until safety or support arrives, is a very efficient survival response. As such, it brings with it the valuable tool of self-regulation by dissociation. If something feels uncomfortable, we just turn it off. Compartmentalize. Stuff it away. By breaking life into fragments, we can remain present with the portions that are tolerable.

While in many cases this happens automatically, we may also feel as if we’ve mastered dissociation. Though this can happen at both ends of the attachment spectrum, on the avoidant side it can feel functional and intentional. We then might ask our anxious partners (often with disdain versus curiosity, because resentment does tend to build in avoidant attachment), “Why can’t you just turn off your emotion? Why does it have to get so big?”

Dissociation does bring with it some challenges. Memories, emotions, and bodily sensations may become inaccessible. Sometimes the remaining present feels unbearable, so we disappear. If we feel unsafe and dissociative while in a particular moment of life, sometimes we appreciate that moment (or entire relationship) only in retrospect.

Dissociation can also be activated by conflict. The more the other person amplifies, the smaller and more still we might become. Some even dissociate to a point where they become mute (or even fall asleep) during an argument.

If we feel unsafe and dissociative while in a particular moment of life, sometimes we appreciate that moment (or entire relationship) only in retrospect.

So we continue to live in an isolated bubble, preserved and protected, our resources limited because exchange feels unsafe and we believe “Nobody really loves anybody.”

Communication Resignation

“See me. Don’t see me. Get away from me if you can’t see me.”

The spotlight is our nemesis, and words take effort because they elicit our own physical emotional expression, which those around us may judge and reject. The words we put out into the world can be used as weapons against us: they not only reduce the deniability factor when the spotlight comes back around to us, but when others don’t like our words, we may face conflict.

We often resent those closest to us for their perceived judgment and rejection, for crossing boundaries we never articulated, or for not knowing how to draw us out from our silence (that to us is speaking volumes). From our perspective, we’ve been sending out very clear signals that nobody is picking up.

There is a fatalism inherent in the freeze state.

The Evidence

Showing a person on the avoidant end of the attachment spectrum that it’s okay to need people can be a hard sell. So, let’s take a look at the evidence. The following traits are often indicators of an unacknowledged need for people:

• An instinct to hide or diminish personal expression or physical presence in public settings
• Limited assertiveness until trapped (like a cornered animal)
• Caretaking, or lack of self-care when in the presence of others
• A struggle to access empathy in conflict
• A focus on independence or one foot out the door (“I don’t need you.”)
• A search for a partner who looks good or presents well rather than one who fits (with the belief this will reduce negative focus)
• Distraction, deflection, or disengagement in response to uncomfortable emotion
• Functional dissociation (“Just turn it off.”)
• Dissociative activities (movies, social media, porn, and so on) dominate the seemingly elusive alone time when a loved one leaves, suggesting discomfort in a space that was so ardently pursued

Many of us learn early in life to separate from uncomfortable sensations and emotions by dissociating and compartmentalizing. We may become so good at it that we don’t recognize when it’s happening. This is how we handle things like separation. We don’t realize we miss anyone because we dissociate from loneliness. And when they return from that trip to the store, we can fall right back into our story that says we need nobody, that nobody should need anyone.

Healing

If the dilemma lies in our dissociation from discomfort and our own internal denial of social needs, then healing comes in recognition and gradual exposure to discomfort in feeling and expressing those needs. This healing might include leaning vulnerably on others and feeling met at our own level. A sense of agency in meeting our own social needs can feel liberating, and as our bodies learn to relax, over time we may find it even easier to meet those needs. We experience others as more safe and open as we ourselves open up to their presence and accept ourselves the way we wish to be accepted by others.

These tips can help further healing:

• Notice your use of dissociation and dissociative activities.
• Notice your breathing and heartbeat when conflict approaches.
• Speak more. Experiment with using words, directly and precisely, even when uncomfortable. (Keep in mind that language centers in the brain can go offline when heart rate increases or breathing becomes constricted.)
• It’s okay to ask about intent instead of automatically attributing hostile or manipulative intent to the actions of others.
• It’s okay to ask for do-overs.
• It’s okay to ask for breaks during conflict and return once bodies calm.
• It’s okay to express what you know they need to hear. You may be surprised at the lack of judgment, even if you “go overboard.”
• Learn to apologize.
• Express a need each day.
• Express an emotion each day.
• Experiment around emotions, discovering which feel safe and which feel like a struggle.
• Notice patterns you’ve inherited from parents or caregivers. Own those as changeable generational patterns versus unchangeable identity.
• Read and memorize the list of avoidant strategies and notice when you use them.
• Know that transition from self-time to together-time might feel unsafe and energetically draining. If we learn to recognize and observe safety in connection (in the present moment), this can become a source of energy rather than a drain on our reserves.
• Securely attached people more often make decisions that are good for all partners in a relationship.
• Learn to differentiate fear from anger (in self and others) so you can meet your partner when they need you most and when you need them most.
• Get out of your routine. Travel together. Get away from familiar resources to places where your partner becomes your resource and automatic and dissociative activities are not an option.
• Make some household chores a shared process.
• Articulate thoughts and emotions as they arise, just for the sake of feeling known.
• Ask for the spotlight.
• Ask for help, even if it’s just a small favor each day.
• Join a group.
• Notice resources you hoard and practice sharing them until it feels comfortable.
• If your relationships feel “broken,” find a therapist who specializes in attachment.
• When your partner asks for a big response instead of a calm exterior and moving toward them feels unbearable, consider leaning into their emotion, validating it, taking responsibility for your part, and experimenting with the idea that allowing things to get bigger may bring you closer to the safe space you seek.
• Observe someone loving you. Notice their face, their posture, and the experience in your own body when holding that space. Love need not be felt in retrospect alone. It can feel very present, and this is where the healing happens.

References:

1. Kinnison, J. (2016, October 18). Type: Dismissive-avoidant attachment style. Retrieved from https://jebkinnison.com/bad-boyfriends-the-book/type-dismissive-avoidant
2. Sattin, N. (2015, December 29). 19: Recipe for a secure, healthy relationship with Stan Tatkin. (2015, December 29). Retrieved from http://www.neilsattin.com/blog/2015/12/19-recipe-for-a-secure-healthy-relationship-with-stan-tatkin
3. Tatkin, S. (2012). Wired for love: How understanding your partners brain can help you defuse conflicts and spark intimacy. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.

Editor’s note: This article is the first in a two-part series. See Avoidant Attachment, Part 2: The Downside of Preservation.

We’re in a relationship, and we feel nothing. Or we gather an ever-growing stockpile of resentment, invoking various strategies to escape intimacy without actually rejecting our partner or escalating into conflict. Does this sound familiar?

While romantic relationships may start off with blissful ease, the dependence of connection can eventually feel threatening. We might feel as if their needs are overtaking ours. We may have less time to relax or get things done in the presence of others. We have to hold our guard against judgment or rejection, and we may come to yearn for bodily regulation, free from social threat, in the safety of alone time.

We can’t assert ourselves, because we worry our needs trigger those around us, increasing and amplifying their needs. The most direct path toward self-regulation requires disengagement from others. So as their needs amplify, we withdraw, maybe even shut down, knowing engagement only increases threat of conflict.

Authentic connection may feel unsafe in this conditioned reality of social threat. It isn’t possible for us to lean on an Other, and intimacy is not allowed. Dependence has come to equal imprisonment, and conflict means the demise of self-agency, which to some, may feel like the death of Self. While saying, “Don’t see me,” we resent those who do not see us. [fat_widget_right]

In our more resourced moments—maybe during time alone, when our bodies are calm—we may desire connection, recognize patterns of limited relationships, admit to loneliness, or even regret about the ways we’ve pushed others away. We may be curious how we can become more emotionally available to those we love. It may be the case that we only feel softness and desire for connection in retrospect, when our bodies feel calm and regulated, when resources feel replenished. We feel love only in its absence.

Avoidant Origins

If neglect leads to obliviousness and oppression fosters freeze/dissociation, then we are left with two options. Either we do not know our emotions exist or we actively separate from the discomfort of them, walling them off so they do not exist in our perceived reality.

If reflection teaches us about ourselves, neglect presents a null mirror, leaving us less aware and without language for internal experience. Oppression often removes any permission to speak or assert ourselves. We might feel more comfortable in our minds when we are solving problems and finding value and purpose in that. We may even seek out problems that need solutions, chaos that seeks refinement, or relationships that confirm our belief we cannot depend on anyone because their needs are too great.

When we experience consistent disconnection (oppression or neglect) in childhood, we often feel easily engulfed by the emotional needs of others. We may desire space and freedom to meet our own needs without having to track or navigate theirs. We have learned through childhood experience that our presence—our emotions, our needs, our mere existence—is a burden. So we contain these things. We internalize and enforce counter-dependent rules in ourselves and in others.

We are drawn toward the illusion of connection, often describing our ideal partner as one that “gets” us in such a way that we need not put any effort into explaining, that we need not become vulnerable. This level of attunement is both the missing experience of empathy we lacked in childhood and the mirage of our attachment journey.

When feeling helpless to meet the needs of others, we often use strategies to disengage the attachment systems of those around us, perceiving their escalating emotions as a growing threat (especially when accompanied by facial or other physical expressions of anger that remind us of early life oppression). But this might look like withdrawal and can feel like abandonment to the people we love, who may find themselves walking on eggshells to avoid exposing us to emotions that trigger our feelings of oppression or helplessness (in much the same way that we attempt to avoid triggering their attachment reactions).

Seclusion and Delusion

Stan Tatkin, author of Wired for Love, suggests that we on the avoidant side tend to conceptualize the world in terms of individual systems rather than social/interactive systems. (“I take care of me. You take care of you.”) While we may occasionally function well in pairs or groups, the transition into those settings can feel threatening, and our resistance may present an ongoing challenge in relationship. We live lives more solitary, even in a romantic partnership. [amazon_affiliate]

We are drawn toward the illusion of connection, often describing our ideal partner as one that “gets” us in such a way that we need not put any effort into explaining, that we need not become vulnerable. This level of attunement is both the missing experience of empathy we lacked in childhood and the mirage of our attachment journey.

As a defense, we often remain intent on naming the absence of empathy, even seeking confirmation that our partners are not providing such a basic human need. We might say, “This doesn’t feel like love.” Or, “I want to be loved, not needed.” More likely, we’ll say nothing. We’ll simply resent this relationship in which we feel unseen and unknown, resent partners for not picking up on our signals, for not providing the empathy and acceptance for which we yearn, the positive reflections we never received.

While any extreme attachment posture creates challenges when navigating romantic relationships, those on the avoidant end of the spectrum often feel helplessness in response to external emotion (“You’re supposed to contain your emotion. If you can’t contain your own, I can’t contain it for you.”), reacting instinctively in ways that inhibit intimacy. Eventually patterns of broken relationships and unmet needs may be recognized, and the belief that love is not actually possible may be the result.

The Freeze State: Hiding and Hoarding

When fight and flight are not viable options, we move into freeze. We avoid detection and conserve resources.

That urge to disappear, to become small and quiet—that’s freeze. In decreasing presentation of Self, we decrease risk of being seen. We preserve our chances of survival. For those on the avoidant side, being seen may feel unsafe. But this creates internal conflict.

We may have been born with an innate drive to connect and lean on others, but survival has overridden attachment, though the drive for attachment remains active. The yearning to be seen and loved is countered by the drive to become small and invisible to threats. When safety is the underlying goal, hiding becomes nuanced, entangled in everyday behaviors that others may not even recognize.

Many of us practice any number of these avoidant strategies, but this doesn’t mean we are limited to them. We also carry anxious and secure strategies, right along with the avoidant ones. The challenge lies in recognizing the strategies we default to and working to develop our tool belt of alternatives.

Scarcity is a common perspective between anxious and avoidant attachment styles. The anxious side views interpersonal connection in terms of scarcity. (“I can never get enough. It’s always disappearing.”) The avoidant end tends to view time, space, and other resources in terms of scarcity. And when resources are viewed as individual possessions rather than shared, conservation often dictates competition and resentment. (“My time is not our time. We can’t both get needs met at the same time. When I’m with you, my needs will not be met.”)

A Menu of Strategies: Distract, Deflect, Disengage

While those on the anxious end of attachment often use strategies to amplify and draw attention, we on the avoidant end lean toward the opposite. We actively diminish and contain our reactions in order to avoid detection and negative attention. For those organized around the expectation of continued oppression, negative focus can feel unbearable and unresolvable.

We tend to do whatever is necessary to avoid judgment and rejection, which means a low tolerance for blame or responsibility (and decreased likelihood of apologizing or acknowledging our own faults). While partners may perceive them as premeditated, these survival behaviors are often subconscious and automatic.

Beyond more obvious avoidant strategies like not speaking, physically isolating, chasing alone time and saying “No” by default in order to maintain space and physical regulation, we may utilize a wide range of more subtle strategies to conceal our needs and perceived inadequacies and ensure we avoid attack/judgment/rejection:

• Deflecting or distracting: We redirect attention away from what we consider our flaws. This often presents as “shifting blame” if we tend to put the spotlight on someone else when we feel blamed or judged.
• Scapegoating or gaslighting: We dismiss or invalidate perceptions/emotions. Invalidating reality, we tell others they should not feel a certain way. Others around us may notice a lack of congruence between our words and nonverbal expressions when we deny our emotions in order to avoid conflict. (“You’re wrong. I’m not feeling that. I’m fine.”) As a result, our loved ones may question themselves, feel pathologized, take on blame in an effort to preserve relationship, and/or cease their behavior.
• Placating: We give them just enough to claim we satisfied their request and then shift the blame (deflect) to them for not accepting this as enough.
• Fixing: We offer pragmatic solutions instead of being with them in their emotions (for fear they will realize we do not know what to do and reject us), then blame them (deflect) for not accepting our solutions.
• Disowning fear: We let partners carry the relational fears and pursue and initiate so we never risk rejection.
• Avoiding commitment: We keep a foot out the door in any relationship. We may also reject preemptively to avoid being rejected. We may even hoard resources (emotional, financial, etc) in preparation for the rejection we believe to be inevitable.
• Rationalizing: After pushing others away, we create narratives to explain why we cannot move closer to them. This often leaves us confusingly oblivious to our own strategies and the fact that we’re making things up as we go along.
• Passive aggression: Because a direct expression of emotions feels too vulnerable and leaves us wide open for attack/rejection, we attack in subtle, deniable ways (such as using silent treatment to get attention instead of saying we feel hurt).
• Perpetual deniability: “Did that hurt? I didn’t mean it that way.” “I never said that.” “You’re imagining it. That’s just your fear.” (See gaslighting and passive aggression above.)
• Justification versus assertiveness: We justify our needs instead of stating them and asking for support. Rather than admitting we need time alone, we say we need time to work to avoid hurting a partner who feels easily abandoned.

Within this process lies invalidation of Self and Other. Over time, the shaming inherent in these strategies can change those around us. As they lose their light, they may initiate less, which may make them feel safer (less confrontational) to us. But what this also means is that they may be growing closer to the point of rejection that we expected all along. In this way, by rejecting their bids for intimacy, we create what we fear and expect: rejection by those closest to us.

Many of us practice any number of these avoidant strategies, but this doesn’t mean we are limited to them. We also carry anxious and secure strategies, right along with the avoidant ones. The challenge lies in recognizing the strategies we default to and working to develop our tool belt of alternatives. If you aren’t sure of how to begin, a qualified and compassionate counselor can help.

References:

1. Kinnison, J. (2016, October 18). Type: Dismissive-avoidant attachment style. Retrieved from https://jebkinnison.com/bad-boyfriends-the-book/type-dismissive-avoidant
2. Sattin, N. (2015, December 29). 19: Recipe for a secure, healthy relationship with Stan Tatkin. (2015, December 29). Retrieved from http://www.neilsattin.com/blog/2015/12/19-recipe-for-a-secure-healthy-relationship-with-stan-tatkin
3. Tatkin, S. (2012). Wired for love: How understanding your partners brain can help you defuse conflicts and spark intimacy. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.