What if healing didn’t start with trying harder, thinking differently, or isolating yourself, but with being seen, understood, and supported in relationship? Interpersonal neurobiology offers a compassionate, science-based map of how emotional healing happens through connection rather than through willpower alone.

Interpersonal Neurobiology

Healing Through Connection

Relational Neuroscience

Interpersonal Neurobiology (IPNB), developed by Dr. Daniel Siegel (Siegel, 2012), teaches that the mind is an embodied, relational process shaped over time by our interactions with others. Neuroscientist Louis Cozolino (Cozolino, 2014) describes the brain as a “social organ of adaptation,” highlighting that our nervous system is designed to regulate and grow within attuned relationships.

In simple terms, we heal when we feel safe with someone. Interpersonal neurobiology helps explain why that sense of safety is not just comforting, it is literally changing the brain and body.

When we experience emotional attunement, empathy, and presence, the nervous system shifts out of survival mode into states that foster resilience, curiosity, and connection. In a culture that often promotes emotional independence, interpersonal neurobiology gently reminds us that connection is the medicine our brains are wired for.

 

Want a quick primer?

GoodTherapy’s overview of Interpersonal Neurobiology (IPNB) breaks down key ideas in accessible language.

---

What Is Interpersonal Neurobiology?

Interpersonal neurobiology combines research from neuroscience, attachment theory, psychology, and systems theory to explore how:

• The brain develops through experience,
• The mind processes emotions and meaning,
• And relationships shape our emotional patterns.

At its core, interpersonal neurobiology is based on three key principles from Siegel’s work (Siegel, 2012):

1. The mind is embodied and relational.

Internal experience results from the interaction between the nervous system and relationships.

2. Experience shapes neural wiring.

Our brains develop through emotional and social interactions, especially early in life.

3. Relationships are powerful agents of healing.

Safe relational experiences, including therapy, can reorganize the brain toward greater integration.

These ideas explain why therapy often works on a deeper level than insight alone: it engages the relational circuitry that shapes who we become. Interpersonal neurobiology helps us see therapy as a living, moment-by-moment process of connection, not just a conversation about problems.

Key idea: In interpersonal neurobiology, healing is less about “fixing yourself” and more about experiencing new, safe relationships that reshape the brain.

---

How Relationships Shape the Brain: Explicit and Implicit Memory

A core concept in interpersonal neurobiology is that the brain encodes experiences not only through conscious memory but also through deeply stored emotional and bodily impressions. Siegel (2012) and Cozolino (2014) describe two types of memory:

Explicit Memory

• Conscious recall of people, events, and facts
• Easily verbalized

Implicit Memory

• Emotional impressions, bodily sensations, response patterns
• Formed before language
• Often felt rather than remembered

Someone who grew up with inconsistent caregiving might not explicitly remember feeling unsafe, but their body may automatically prepare for rejection or conflict. These implicit patterns influence attachment, emotional triggers, and expectations in relationships.

Trauma amplifies this effect, storing experiences as fragmented emotions or bodily sensations rather than coherent narrative memory (Cozolino, 2014). This explains why trauma often manifests as sudden overwhelm, shutdown, anxiety, or relational avoidance, the body remembers what the mind cannot yet articulate.

If your body seems to react “out of nowhere,” interpersonal neurobiology would say those reactions often make sense in light of past relationships, even if you don’t yet have words for them.

If your body “remembers” more than your mind
You may find it helpful to read how the nervous system responds to overwhelming events in this article “The Key Role Your Nervous System Plays in Trauma Recovery.”

---

Neuroplasticity: The Brain Can Change Through Connection

Did you know?

The nervous system often reacts before we have words for what we feel.

One of the most encouraging discoveries in interpersonal neurobiology is that the brain remains adaptable throughout life. Neuroplasticity allows the brain to reorganize based on new relational experiences (Siegel, 2012).

Supportive relationships, including therapy, can:

• Strengthen pathways related to emotional regulation
• Ease survival-based responses
• Develop new templates for safety and trust

Epigenetic research indicates that emotionally attuned environments can even alter gene expression related to stress and resilience (Cozolino, 2014). Healing, therefore, becomes not just psychological but biological, slowly woven into the nervous system through repeated experiences of safety.

How connection reshapes the brain (a simple IPNB view)

1. New experience: You feel met with care instead of criticism.

2. New wiring: Your nervous system gradually learns that closeness can be safe.

3. New pattern: Over time, your default response becomes curiosity and trust rather than shutdown or attack.

Interpersonal neurobiology reminds us that patterns wired in pain can be rewired in connection. Therapy can become one of the places where this rewiring is most intentional and supported.

For a deeper exploration of how repeated relational experiences shape the brain and our capacity for change, read “How Psychotherapy Retrains the Brain to Expect (and Feel) Better.”

---

Why the Right Brain Leads Emotional Healing

Allan Schore’s comprehensive research shows that the right hemisphere of the brain plays a central role in emotional regulation, attachment, and nonverbal communication (Schore, 2019).

The right brain processes:

• Facial expressions
• Tone of voice
• Eye contact
• Presence
• Empathy
• Intuitive relational cues

This part of the brain is most involved in trauma recovery. Schore (2019) describes therapy as a right-brain-to-right-brain process: the therapist’s attuned presence helps the client’s nervous system feel safe enough to regulate. Often, healing begins before words are spoken, the body perceives safety first.

When your therapist slows their pace, softens their tone, and stays with you through difficult feelings, they are engaging your right brain. From an interpersonal neurobiology perspective, this is not “just talking”, it is active co-regulation and nervous system repair.

---

The Triangle of Well-Being in Interpersonal Neurobiology

Siegel’s (2012) “Triangle of Well-Being” describes mental health through the interaction of:

1. The Mind

Thoughts, feelings, sensations, beliefs.

2. The Brain

Neural activity and bodily regulation.

3. Relationships

Our emotional and social connections.

Each aspect influences the others:

• Safe relationships support a regulated brain.
• A regulated brain fosters an integrated mind.
• An integrated mind encourages healthier relationships.

This cycle underpins emotional resilience. Interpersonal neurobiology offers a way to visualize how even small shifts, like noticing your breath, receiving a caring look, or sharing honestly with a therapist, ripple across the whole triangle.

For a gentle introduction to how the brain, mindfulness, and connection interact, check out: “Your Social Brain: Wired for Love and Connection.”

---

Integrating Implicit Memory in Therapy

Since trauma is stored implicitly in the body and emotional memory, healing requires integration, not suppression. Interpersonal neurobiology emphasizes that we do not simply “get over” trauma by thinking differently, we heal by bringing fragmented experiences into a more connected, embodied story.

Therapeutic approaches based on interpersonal neurobiology help integrate these experiences through:

Mindfulness and somatic awareness:

• Gently noticing sensations and emotions without judgment.

Narrative linking:

• Connecting past and present to create coherence (Siegel, 2012).

Relational Safety:

• Providing a secure therapeutic environment where emotions can be explored without fear (Badenoch, 2008).

As clients begin to integrate implicit memories, they often notice:

• Fewer emotional triggers
• Better boundaries
• Greater clarity and confidence
• A stronger sense of self
• Healthier relationships

This is the essence of healing in interpersonal neurobiology: fragmented parts of experience finally coming together in a way that feels coherent, compassionate, and grounded.

Considering therapy rooted in connection?
Many therapists draw on interpersonal neurobiology, attachment theory, and somatic approaches. You can use GoodTherapy’s Find a Therapist directory to search by location, specialty, and type of therapy.

---

Rupture and Repair: How Resilience Is Built

No relationship, including therapy, is perfectly attuned. Interpersonal neurobiology emphasizes that resilience is built not by avoiding ruptures but by the ability to repair them.

Tronick’s “still-face” research and Schore’s attachment studies show that ruptures followed by repair strengthen trust, emotional flexibility, and attachment security (Schore, 2019; Tronick, 2007).

Rupture

A moment of misattunement or disconnection:

• Misunderstanding in session
• A missed cue or unmet need

Repair

Turning toward each other to reconnect:

• Talking about what happened
• Feeling heard, validated, and reconnected

When repairs happen, therapy demonstrates that:

• Conflict can be managed
• Emotional needs can be expressed
• Relationships can deepen through honesty
• Vulnerability can be safe

Over time, this process creates a new internal template for relational safety, one of the core promises of interpersonal neurobiology–informed therapy.

Protective part

Keeps you on guard, scans for danger.

Vulnerable part

Holds pain, fear, and unmet needs.

Compassionate self

Begins to listen, soothe, and integrate.

---

The Therapist as a Co-Regulator

In interpersonal neurobiology–informed therapy, the therapist does more than interpret or analyze; they co-regulate with the client. Through tone, pacing, body language, and emotional presence, the therapist offers a steady, regulated nervous system for the client to anchor to (Bowlby, 1988; Schore, 2019).

Over time, clients internalize this steadiness and develop their own capacity for emotional regulation. Healing becomes embodied, not just cognitive.

From an interpersonal neurobiology perspective, therapy is a living example of how human nervous systems are designed to heal together. You don’t have to regulate alone, your therapist’s nervous system “lends” stability while yours learns new patterns.

---

Integration and Mental Health

According to Siegel (2012), integration, linking differentiated parts of the self, is the foundation of mental well-being. When integration occurs, individuals experience:

• Emotional stability
• Flexibility in thinking
• Clarity
• Coherence
• A more profound sense of self

Therapy supports integration by reconnecting thoughts, feelings, body sensations, and relational experiences. As these systems link, life often feels less overwhelming and more grounded. Interpersonal neurobiology offers both a language and a roadmap for this process.

Integration links:

• Thoughts with feelings
• Body sensations with meaning
• Past experiences with present responses
• Self-understanding with safe relationships

When these parts connect,
life feels more coherent.

Frequently Asked Questions

Quick answers to common questions about interpersonal neurobiology and healing through connection.

Q: What is interpersonal neurobiology in simple terms?

A: Interpersonal neurobiology is a way of understanding how the brain, mind, and relationships interact. It says our brains are shaped by experience, especially emotional experiences with other people, and that new, safe relationships can help “rewire” patterns formed in times of stress or trauma.

Q: How does interpersonal neurobiology relate to trauma?

A: Interpersonal neurobiology explains that trauma is often stored in the body and implicit memory rather than in words. Because of this, healing usually involves more than talking, it includes nervous system regulation, safe connection, and slowly integrating fragmented experiences into a more coherent story.

Q: Does my therapist need to label their work as interpersonal neurobiology for it to help?

A: Not necessarily. Many therapists use ideas from interpersonal neurobiology, such as co-regulation, attachment, and somatic awareness, without always naming them. What matters most is that you feel safe, seen, and supported, and that your therapist is attentive to how your body, emotions, and relationships are all connected.

Q: How can I find a therapist who works with interpersonal neurobiology principles?

A: You can look for therapists who mention relational, attachment-based, trauma-informed, or somatic approaches in their profiles. GoodTherapy’s Find a Therapist directory allows you to search by specialty and type of therapy, and the Interpersonal Neurobiology (IPNB) section explains this approach in more detail.

Final Reflection: Healing Happens in Relationship

Interpersonal neurobiology offers a simple but transformative truth:

You were never meant to heal alone.

Your brain is wired for connection (Cozolino, 2014). Your nervous system changes through attuned presence (Schore, 2019). Your inner wounds, formed in relationship, can be healed in relationship (Siegel, 2012).

Whether through therapy or through safe, nurturing connections in your life, your brain and body can reorganize and build resilience. In the language of interpersonal neurobiology, healing becomes not a solitary effort, but a shared journey.

About the Author

Azin Heydari, MA, Registered Psychotherapist

Azin is a trauma-informed, attachment-based psychotherapist working with adults navigating complex and developmental trauma, attachment wounds, relationship struggles, anxiety, and emotional overwhelm.

Her work is grounded in interpersonal neurobiology, somatic awareness, and nervous system regulation, supporting clients in rebuilding trust in themselves and in connection with others.

View Azin’s GoodTherapy profile
↗

References

• Badenoch, B. (2008). Being a brain-wise therapist: A practical guide to interpersonal neurobiology. W. W. Norton & Company. View book
• Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books. View book
• Cozolino, L. (2014). The neuroscience of human relationships: Attachment and the developing social brain (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton & Company. View book
• Schore, A. N. (2019). Right brain psychotherapy. W. W. Norton & Company. View book
• Siegel, D. J. (2012). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. View book
• Tronick, E. (2007). The neurobehavioral and social-emotional development of infants and children. W. W. Norton & Company.

by Bren Michelle Chasse, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist

Healing from Trauma Does Not Hinge on a Survivor’s Ability to Forgive

Forgiveness is an evolutionary phenomenon that, historically, has been a necessary part to building and sustaining community (Tooby & Cosmides, 2005)). In early times, it allowed groups to minimize conflict and helped support, foster, and preserve cooperation so that groups could function effectively, thrive, and achieve the goals necessary for their survival. In short, group members needed each other, a fact which didn’t change when a wrong had been done. They had to learn to deal with wrongs and stay alive. Over time, the concept of forgiveness has transformed into a modern-day virtue. Many consider forgiveness to be the moral high ground. There are even mental health providers who believe forgiveness to be the holy grail of healing, identifying it as a necessary therapeutic objective or clinical goal (Luskin, 2003). I am not one of them. 

A Deeper Look at Forgiveness and Trauma

Research has shown that, in general, people practice forgiveness more readily within their tribe or primary support group, while more likely to withhold forgiveness from those outside their group (McAuliffe & Dunham, 2016). However, this research depends on an assumption of high-functioning group dynamics. Not every relationship we experience in our lives (or even within our own family systems) falls into this category. It is simply inappropriate to generalize and apply a forgiveness model evenly across the board to all relationships. Relationships, by definition, are nuanced and very complex—and so is the experience of trauma.  

Additionally, not all transgressions are created equal. For example, I may be able to forgive a close friend who lied to me but find myself unwilling or unable to forgive the same friend if they were to assault me. A one-size-fits-all approach to healing simply doesn’t work! More specifically, the forgiveness model, when applied equally across domains, is fundamentally flawed. It fails to account for context, attachment style, cultural implications, personal moral values, organic individual differences, past experiences (including prior trauma exposure), and the depth and breadth of the transgression.  

Force-Fed Forgiveness?

Unfortunately, I’ve found in my practice that many clients have a history of being force-fed (through various sources) the value and importance of always forgiving. Consider the Lord’s Prayer, which requires we stand humbly before God and ask, “Forgive our trespasses…” and challenges us to “…forgive those that trespass against us.” The pressure to forgive is often applied by those we hold in high regard. When family members, advisors, mentors, close friends, or spiritual leaders insist on this, many clients feeling gaslit, shamed, and forced to betray themselves by placing the needs of their perpetrator above their own. 

Healing from trauma requires a focus on the self — not on the needs of another. When we claim that forgiveness is a necessary component of healing, we tell survivors that they cannot be whole again unless they extend forgiveness even to those who have committed the most physically and psychologically violent acts imaginable. 

Making Change Happen

As a society and as therapists, we must begin to change the language and conversation around forgiveness. If we don’t, we maintain the status quo and risk becoming part of the problem. The language we use, especially when we are in a position of power, really matters. 

We have to change the way we think about this topic as well. An unwillingness to forgive does not directly translate to anger, aggression, seeking revenge, or a refusal to move on, nor does it necessarily equate to a dysfunctional response to trauma. In many cases, survivors simply don’t relate to the concept of forgiveness. The healing journey focuses on creating and enforcing healthy boundaries, refusing to hold toxic secrets, learning to prioritize their own physical and emotional needs, and healing the younger parts of themselves that still feel stuck in the trauma of their past. If forgiveness isn’t part of a survivor’s healing journey, it doesn’t mean there’s something wrong. 

Be True to Yourself as You Heal

Let me be clear — for those that find forgiveness to be a healing part of your journey, I encourage you to embrace it. If you don’t relate to that, or if you feel forgiveness is a barrier to your healing, I encourage you to honor that. What I am arguing is that not everyone who experiences trauma will benefit from sharing physical, emotional, or psychological space with the person who has harmed them. Forgiveness is not necessarily a required stop along the path toward healing. Simply put, how you heal is up to you!

References

Luskin, F. (2003).  Forgive for good: A proven prescription for health and happiness. Harper One.

McAuliffe, K. & Dunham, Y. (2016). Group bias in cooperative norm enforcement. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 371(1686). doi https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00688.x

Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology, in Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, ed. Buss, D. M. Wiley, 5-67.

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.

Psychotherapist Salvador Minuchin developed the concept of enmeshment to characterize family systems with weak, poorly defined boundaries. The entire family may work to prop up a single viewpoint or protect one family member from the consequences of their actions. In these family systems, individual autonomy is weak, and family members may over-identify with one another. For example, a child may be unable to see their own interests as distinct from their parent’s and may defend that parent’s interests even when doing so is harmful.

Enmeshment inevitably compromises family members’ individuality and autonomy. It can also enable abuse. Abuse within an enmeshed family system is a unique sort of trauma. Some survivors of such trauma may not recognize their experiences as traumatic and may even defend their abusers. Because boundaries are weak in these family systems, family members who correctly identify their experiences as traumatic may be ostracized or even labeled as abusive.

Characteristics of Enmeshed Families

Most healthy families are loyal to one another and may share certain values. In an enmeshed family, this loyalty and shared belief system comes at the expense of individual autonomy and well-being. For example, the entire family might support the idea of the father as a wonderful parent or great leader, even though he is physically abusive.

Enmeshment does not always lead to abuse, but it is a potent tool for shielding abusers from the consequences of their actions.

Some characteristics of enmeshed family systems include:

• Each family member fills a specific role. In most cases, these roles enable dysfunctional behavior from other family members. For example, the family peacemaker may smooth over conflicts the family abuser creates or might guilt other family members for attempting to build healthy boundaries.
• Enmeshment often begins when one family member has a mental health condition or substance abuse issue. Enmeshment normalizes harmful behavior and can be a way to avoid treatment.
• Enmeshed families often view dissent as betrayal.
• Enmeshed families may demand an unusual level of closeness even from adult children. For instance, an adult child with children of their own may be expected to spend every holiday with the family. If they spend a holiday with in-laws or with their own family, the enmeshed family may shun or otherwise punish them.
• Family members’ emotions are tied up together. It can be difficult to discern where one person’s emotions begin and anther’s end.
• There may be unspoken family norms that family members take for granted. Outsiders may rightly view these norms as unusual or dysfunctional. For example, an enmeshed family may have a norm of never calling the police on a family member who abuses their partner.

Some people also use enmeshment to refer to covert, or emotional incest. This is when a parent or other caregiver treats a child as a partner or equal. The parent may rely on the child for support and unconditional love rather than filling these basic needs for the child.

How Enmeshment Enables Abuse

Enmeshment does not always lead to abuse, but it is a potent tool for shielding abusers from the consequences of their actions. Enmeshed family members may be reflexively defensive of one another and view even deeply harmful behavior as normal and good.

Enmeshment can make it difficult for a person to form close relationships with other people. Without these relationships, it is very difficult for enmeshed family members to recognize that their family’s relational style is not healthy.

Even when enmeshed family members do form outside relationships, their enmeshed family may intrude on these relationships. Alternatively, the enmeshed person may view their family as normal and their partner as the problem. For example, an adult who gets married may still prioritize their childhood family over their spouse or may expect their spouse to defer to family members or accept abusive behavior.

The Trauma of Enmeshed Families

Enmeshment itself can be traumatic, especially when enmeshment normalizes abuse. In other cases, though, enmeshment is the byproduct of trauma. A serious illness, natural disaster, or sudden loss may cause a family to become unusually close in an attempt to protect themselves. When this pattern persists well beyond the initial trauma, enmeshment loses its protective value and can undermine each family member’s personal autonomy.

Enmeshed family systems are often dismissive of trauma. A parent might dismiss their drunken night of abuse as a normal reaction to a child’s bad grades. In adulthood, siblings may defend a parent’s abuse by insisting that the parent was under immense stress or that the abuse was actually the children’s fault. By dismissing trauma as normal or deserved, enmeshed family systems make it difficult for family members to understand their emotions and experiences. In this form of gaslighting, a family might consistently substitute the family’s collective judgment for an individual’s feelings. Over time, the individual family member may struggle to distinguish their own emotions from the emotions the family insists they should have.

Trauma Bonding and Enmeshment

People who experience trauma or intense emotions together may bond in unusual and unhealthy ways. Patrick Carnes developed the concept of trauma bonding to characterize these relationships.

With trauma bonding, the cycle of abuse tightly binds family members, creating intense emotional attachments. In abusive relationships, the abuser may become abusive and frightening, then apologetic and extremely loving. Some abusive parents attempt to compensate for their abuse with gifts, special outings, or intense love. Many survivors of abuse report that, when their parents were not abusive, they were extremely creative, dynamic, and loving.

This intermittent reinforcement of love and affection can be very difficult to escape. The longer it persists, the more difficult it may become for a person to leave. Abuse survivors may truly love their abusers and believe that their abusers love them, too.

Even when survivors correctly identify the abuse and establish boundaries or leave the relationship, trauma bonding and enmeshment can affect future relationships. The cycle of abuse can feel normal in these situations, as an intermittent schedule of love and affection becomes the person’s point of reference for a relationship. This may cause trauma and enmeshment survivors to seek out and remain in abusive or enmeshed relationships. It can also make it easier for their family to pull them back into the abuse and chaos.

People who grow up in dysfunctional family systems may ignore their own emotions. They may question their memories, wonder if their trauma really happened, or believe that they deserve to be abused. Even when a person is able to see their family through a more objective lens, establishing boundaries can prove difficult. Holidays, family vacations, and other times of intense family closeness can trigger old habits and lead to new trauma.

Therapy can help a person draw clear boundaries, take their emotions seriously, and move beyond enmeshment. A therapist is also an outside voice who can help a person understand that the behaviors their family normalized are not healthy and that they do not have to remain trapped in their usual family role forever.

To begin your search for a compassionate therapist, click here.

References:

1. Carnes, P. J. (1997). The betrayal bond: Breaking free of exploitative relationships. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc.
2. Green, R., & Werner, P. D. (1996). Intrusiveness and closeness-caregiving: Rethinking the concept of family enmeshment. Family Process, 35(2), 115-136. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1996.00115.x
3. Trauma bonding. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.abuseandrelationships.org/Content/Survivors/trauma_bonding.html

Therapists used to reserve the term “trauma” to describe events like war, rape, and life-threatening experiences. We now recognize that people can have similar responses to relational traumas. When one partner engages in behaviors such as infidelity or addictive behaviors, leaving their partner feeling betrayed and abandoned, the hurt partner can experience trauma-related symptoms. They may experience shame, worthlessness, withdrawal, paranoia, obsessive thoughts about the betrayal, and thoughts of self-harm.

I find that often, couples minimize, dismiss, or misinterpret these symptoms, making healing and reconnection difficult. The hurt partner may wonder, “Are you doing this to me again?” This fear can turn into an array of behaviors: accusations, interrogations, questions, and looking into their partner’s emails, phones, and computers for evidence of deceitful or hurtful behavior. They may even conclude “I can never trust you again” or “You are incapable of changing” when they feel overwhelmed.

For the offending partner, this can be a defeating experience. Maybe they truly have ended the hurtful behavior. Maybe they are working on an effective recovery and have achieved a significant period of sobriety. Maybe they have ended an affair and fessed up to their deceit.

[fat_widget_right]

Even with all of this, their partner may be vigilant and untrusting. The offending partner may get frustrated when the other continues to bring up old hurts or dig for evidence of expected poor behavior. Frustration can turn to anger and resentment: “My partner will never trust me again.” “Why can’t they just move on?”

When I find couples in this distressing cycle, I start to inquire about the presence of unresolved trauma—a force that, when unacknowledged, can pit partners against each other and make healing difficult.

Reliving the Pain

Let me illustrate with a hypothetical example. Jenny and Stan came to couples therapy to heal from the hurts of his addictive behaviors. Stan had been in recovery for almost a year, diligently working his recovery program and making significant progress. They felt hopeful about their healing as a couple and at times have felt closer than they ever did before his addictive behaviors escalated.

When I find couples in this distressing cycle, I start to inquire about the presence of unresolved trauma—a force that, when unacknowledged, can pit partners against each other and make healing difficult.

Therefore, they were both surprised when what seemed like a small event turned into a standoff that reminded them of the chaotic days when Stan was active in his addiction. They explained how Stan got stuck in a meeting, forgot to call Jenny, and came home two hours later than expected. Jenny described how, when Stan apologized and gave his excuses for why he was so late, that moment felt like the moments in the past when he would lie to her to cover up his addictive behaviors. She felt the same feelings of betrayal, abandonment, and uncertainty.

Stan was upset, too. He described how overwhelmed and angry he felt seeing Jenny’s reaction. Even though he was truthful in his reasons for being late, he was facing those same harsh responses from Jenny. She was accusatory and untrusting, despite all his progress. In our session, they both reported feeling they were “back to square one” and “could not be together if it was going to be like this.”

Recognizing the Trauma Response

When couples recognize the trauma response that was triggered, they can start to respond to those moments in transformative ways. They can appropriately tune in to each other. They can see that “the problem” is not necessarily their partner’s inability to be trustworthy. “The problem” is not the hurt partner’s inability to move on. “The problem” is the disconnect that happens when the pain of the past is triggered in both partners.

Stan and Jenny faced a normal, yet pivotal moment when he was late. How they learned to respond in those moments determined the pace of their healing. If Stan responded to Jenny with “You need to get over this,” she would have been left to manage her trauma response alone, further dividing the relationship. However, if Stan became a safe place for her to experience her trauma response, they could learn to connect in ways that are imperative for the healing process. In these moments, couples can strengthen their bond and attachment.

When the pain of old hurts gets triggered, it is no longer “Here we go again,” but rather, “Of course you feel this way sometimes. I’m in it with you. You are not alone in this.” The offending partner can respond to the hurt partner’s moment of panic with understanding and comfort. This shift allows them to move out of a defensive stance of “This isn’t going to work if you are never going to trust me” and into a comforting stance of “I’m so sorry this is scary for you right now. What can I do to help?”

The hurt partner can recognize their emotions as a traumatic response. They can start to notice the difference between “You are untrustworthy” and “I’m feeling that anxiety and panic again, like I’m scared you are going to hurt me again. In these moments, I really need you to be with me, reassure me, understand my pain, hear me,” etc.

[amazon_affiliate]

Building Trust and Connection

These triggering moments turn into opportunities for true healing and transformative connection. This is when couples take the pain of incredible hurts and use it to connect in ways that create security and safety. These triggering moments, when handled with care, become the foundation of rebuilding trust. They are not moments to be feared and avoided, but rather moments to be valued for the closeness they can bring. The relationship not only becomes a safe place to find relief but also a protection against the stress that trauma can bring.

If relational traumas are coming between you and your partner, contact a licensed therapist.

References:

1. Carnes, S., Lee, M. A., & Rodriguez, A. D. (2012). Facing heartbreak: Steps to recovery for partners of sex addicts. Carefree, AZ: Gentle Path Press.
2. Johnson, S. M. (2002). Emotionally focused couple therapy with trauma survivors: Strengthening attachment bonds. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Editor’s note: This article is the second in a two-part series. See Part 1: Opposing Attachment Styles.

The conflict is both a fight for and a protection against intimacy.

If we can hold others only as much as we have held ourselves, then we will tend to connect with others who have a comparable capacity for internal discomfort—those at a similar distance from secure attachment. Clinging and avoiding represent methods of maintaining a comfortable distance from intimacy. While we may hate a partner’s method, we also depend on it. We are drawn to it.

The Never-Ending Conflict

The abandoned side says: “If they would just stay and assure me, I would be calm in a minute.”

The oppressed side says: “If they would just calm down and stop attacking, I would be able to stay present with them.”

As conflict approaches, we switch states.

[fat_widget_right]

Dependence and conflict are the primary ingredients required for attachment reenactment. After a certain level of intimacy is reached in the relationship—once we begin relying emotionally on a partner—the relationship begins to take on a new shape. This new shape looks very much like our relationship with one or more primary attachment figures. The anxious side feels an urgent, physically activating preparation for abandonment in the moment, and the avoidant side feels oppressed, trapped, unable to move, unable to choose their own life—both yearning and resigned.

Extremes polarize. If either side relaxes, comes closer to the middle, the other does as well. Either person has an opportunity to end this dance. And in the middle of biological survival reactions, that awareness disappears. Without access to present-moment resources, living in child states, we react not to our partners but to our parents, to the embodied memories of our caregivers.

The Self-Perpetuating Loop

Sometimes it feels like a role in which we’re trapped. Each character plays out a set of cued reactions so rehearsed and precise they may as well have been written in a script.

The avoidant side is well-aware of self but less practiced at communicating internal events (thoughts, sensations, emotions) to other. The anxious side is better at communicating but less aware of internal events, less able to meet them and talk about them objectively without becoming caught up in the physical activation of the emotions.

Conflicts in this relational pattern tend be more drawn out and feel less productive. One side becomes the pursuer, amplifying to draw positive attention, the other the distancer, disengaging to avoid negative attention—together playing out an endlessly retraumatizing dance.

In therapy, the gift is this: coming to a place where either the breakup or continuation feels healthy for both, where each side believes at a physical level they are okay, that the story makes sense, that closure has been found and each person knows how to move forward in gentle compassion for both self and other.

The avoidant side demands less fight, says they cannot remain present in conflict, uses abandonment as a tool, a weapon (“the silent treatment”)—the only thing their partner can hear. The anxious side says they feel like they’re walking on eggshells, unable to expect their partner to remain present with emotional expressions (anger, volume). Each side feels unseen, invalidated, unacceptable (often perceived as a confirmation of the same feelings experienced in childhood).

Fighting styles stay true to attachment styles and survival strategies.

Those on the anxious side tend to amplify, land fully in emotion, demand support, and may be more likely to fight physically, even “small” physical contacts like pinching or blocking a path of escape. Over time, these “small” assaults can escalate.

Those on the avoidant side may be more likely to diminish, freeze, land as far as possible from the emotion, even dissociate. They may remain rigid, stoic, and resentful, wishing their partner might “get it” and end the attack, release the freeze. (“Can’t they see I’m trapped and helpless?”) They tend to fight in ways that are less visible—ways which often feel manipulative, invalidating, and “crazy”-making to the more-direct anxious side. They may placate, deflect, and even gaslight their partners in order to find freedom and self, to regulate their bodies once again as they get away from seemingly endless and fruitless conflict.

Grieving the Fantasy of the Perfect Union

Both sides in this dance carry fantasy and fear, wanting their partner to meet them in a selfless way—to meet their emotions with perfect attunement and empathy and to help them calm their body.

The wished-for scenario is available only in the domain of one-sided attachment (i.e., parent-child relationship). While a version of it can happen in therapy, it is not romantic, nor committed long-term outside of the therapy room. Healthy romantic relationship requires internal connection and acceptance so partners are no longer expected or wished to act as parents—to fulfill a long-unmet need.

Romantic relationships present an inherently bidirectional dependence. In an adult romantic relationship, each side shares control, and each is responsible for their own growth, for communicating their needs, for making choices about the relationship, for finding purpose and support outside of the relationship as well as within it. If either partner stops growing on their own, the relationship stagnates. If either side becomes overly dependent on the other, resentment may build and the relationship may become burdened and tumultuous.

Healing Approaches

In relationship, some of the healing can take place in the way we meet our partners:

• For the avoidant side: Be aware of your partner’s anxious assumptions. Know their need for response … and respond. This is the common commerce of relationship: bid and respond. Ask for attention and receive attention. While it sounds simple, it is far from easy. Without it, the relationship cannot survive over time. Focus on consistent connection, because this is where their wounding happened. And this may trigger you.
• For the anxious side: Be aware of your partner’s avoidant perceptions and strategies. They are as valid as your panic. Tatkin suggests: “If your partner needs time to switch to people mode, ask lovingly for that switch within the next 10 minutes or hour, and put yourself in a place where they can come to you versus you approaching them (which feels like threat and gets equated with control).” In other words, focus on their sense of agency and freedom, acknowledging their wholeness and their right to choose their own life (even when those choices seem insignificant in the grand scheme), because this is where their wounding happened. If you can show them that you respect their valid, separate needs, and that you are not burdened or harmed by them, they may feel honored at a core level, and they may feel safe to love you.

Individually, much of the healing comes down to awareness and ownership, learning to be and stay with each internal emotion, to meet it with a gentle compassion, with the same warm eyes you would use to meet a child or a loved pet. In those moments where you look back through the generations of your family and see these relational/emotional patterns playing out, stay with that. Feel it in your body. Honor the real and present experience of a racer who has been passed a generational baton and has nowhere to run.

• If you are on the anxious side, be aware your experience has taught you to focus more outwardly while sometimes ignoring what is happening internally. This is what creates loneliness and panic. If you can be both with and separate from the internal sadness, you may no longer feel alone. (This takes practice and sometimes the support of a therapist. Even a yoga or mindfulness practice can help.) Remain curious about your internal experience as well as your partner’s. Scan your body before beginning a conversation. Practice holding attention on yourself and your partner simultaneously. If you feel no resources outside of your relationship, focus on developing new hobbies, new social connections—anything to alleviate the belief this relationship is “everything.” Notice how easy it is for you to take the blame your partner deflects toward you. Question that.
• If you are on the avoidant side, be aware your experience has taught you to keep things to yourself and to give up when resources feel too stretched. Practice doing the opposite. Move physically when feeling stuck, and share about your day—even the parts you assume will bore or burden your partner. And, sometimes, ask for help. Experiment. See what happens when you allow yourself to lean into your partner, remaining vulnerable at every level. Know panic lies beneath dissociation. Find safe space (gardening, nature, your partner, a pet, whatever your favorite resource might be) to feel and process that panic.

Break Up or Continue On?

This relationship can work, if both sides:

• Take ownership for their own attachment needs and strategies.
• Take responsibility for the ongoing work of both self-growth and relationship growth.
• Remain willing to experiment repeatedly with ways to meet both self and other.
• Find ways to access an internal home base and witness internal pain.

And, in the end, rather than staying in the relationship out of fear; because a partner completes a missing skill set; by default to maintain status quo and conserve energy; because the intimacy in approaching the moment of breaking up is too high; or because the pain of rejecting your partner (sometimes pain in you that you project onto them) feels unbearable (sometimes forcing dissociation at the thought of breakup), understand this relationship does not have to work. By the time each partner has processed childhood pains and come to see this dance for what it is, the end of this pattern may really feel okay. In fact, if either person has changed, they may lose that intoxicating draw to this pattern. It will just no longer feel attractive, “passionate,” or necessary.

Once we grieve what was missing—once we stop fighting against the reality of it and the seemingly unbearable emotion of it—we are no longer attracted to the same cycle. Some people find the attachment trauma was in fact the only thing they had in common, that they needed to come together to heal each other, that they feel at peace with the idea of parting ways and sending love. Some view it as a lesson they needed to learn or a new version of self that they had to “hurt into.”

From a natural-growth perspective, the parts of us that seek out this pattern do so for a reason. If we have been unable to “be with” our pain—if we have inherited or developed “adult” identities that abandon or attack the parts of self that hurt—then the continual reenactment of relational patterns forces us back into opportunities to meet the pain, to meet the child in us, to finally witness it with different eyes, and to understand what that difference really means. It’s as if the child in us is saying, “This! Right here! This feeling right here—the emotions, the sensations in your body, the instinct to panic or disappear: THIS IS WHAT I FELT! For years! This was real. This happened. Nobody noticed. See me. Be with me. Meet me the way I’ve wanted to be met.”

In therapy, the gift is this: coming to a place where either the breakup or continuation feels healthy for both, where each side believes at a physical level they are okay, that the story makes sense, that closure has been found and each person knows how to move forward in gentle compassion for both self and other. If you’re not sure how to get there, contact a licensed therapist for guidance.

References:

1. Caldwell, J. G., & Shaver, P. R. (2014). Promoting attachment-related mindfulness and compassion: A wait-list-controlled study of women who were mistreated during childhood. Mindfulness, 6(3), 624-636. doi:10.1007/s12671-014-0298-y
2. Dekel, S., & Farber, B.A. (2012). Models of Intimacy of Securely and Avoidantly Attached Young Adults. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 200(2): 156 doi:10.1097/NMD.0b013e3182439702
3. Simpson, et al. (2009). Attachment working models twist memories of relationship events. Psychological Science; doi:10.1177/0956797609357175
4. Tatkin, S. (2009). Addiction to “alone time”: avoidant attachment, narcissism, and a one‐person psychology within a two‐person psychological system. The Therapist, 57(January‐February). Retrieved from http://stantatkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Addiction-to-Alone-Time.pdf
5. Tatkin, S. (2009). The plight of the avoidantly attached partner in couples therapy. New Therapist 62, 10-16. Retrieved from http://stantatkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/I-want-you-in-the-house.pdf
6. Tatkin, S. (2011). Allergic to hope: Angry resistant attachment and a one-person psychology within a two-person psychological system. Psychotherapy in Australia, 18(1), 66-73. Retrieved from http://stantatkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Allergic-to-Hope_Tatkin.pdf

Editor’s note: This article is the first in a two-part series. See Part 2: A Built-In Path to Healing.

Few of us might consider pain a gift.

To be clear: Relational trauma/abuse is not earned, not to be pursued, and is not being repainted here in a woo-woo, positive light. Pain becomes a gift in retrospect, in the intentional building of a story over time that allows us a sense of redemption from an old story of blame or grief. In the present, pain alerts us to problems and can potentially orient us toward solutions. Repeated pain—the exact same sensation felt over and over—can become a revelation, and in this way can bring a sense of control, a chance to step away from an excruciating pattern.

Do a Google search for “toxic relationship” or “anxious-avoidant trap” and this is what comes up: one particular relational pattern that couples therapists see so often it can feel cliché—a pattern deceptively invisible when you’re in the midst of it. Beneath the standard problems—finances, mess in the home, use of time, how to discipline the kids—lies this incredibly common pattern.

[fat_widget_right]

A good portion of us are living in worlds our partners cannot see—worlds driven by either abandonment or oppression. We are either fighting to move toward others—asking them to relieve the feeling of abandonment and regulate our bodies—or we are struggling to balance self and other, unsure how to unite without losing self, aware that when alone we can feel both lonely and physically regulated. The most avoidant among us, while perhaps giving up on the possibility (or dissociating from it most of the time), still desire connection outside of self.

When these two opposing extremes meet, it can feel electrifying. The child in one sees the other and says at some unconscious level, “There is a consistent person. Now I will be cared for. Now I can relax.” The child in the other says, “There is another child, like me, someone who will not control me. Now I will be safe.”

Over time, though, once a certain level of intimacy and dependence has been attained, the one wanting to feel cared for begins to feel abandoned, and the one wanting to avoid oppression realizes they have re-created their childhood. They have found yet another person who cannot meet their needs, another person who is not really attuned and is instead distracted by their own panic, continuing the belief of the oppressed: “I am alone. I have to be self-sufficient. I cannot count on my partner.” So, they’ll pull away and say with resentment, “Take care of yourself. I have to.” And the dance begins.

The following profiles of “opposing” attachment styles represent extremes. Life is rarely as cut-and-dried or black-and-white as any article. We all carry different traumas in different biological vessels, and we internalize the worldviews of multiple attachment figures (including parents or caregivers; family, friends, or relatives; partners; and therapists) throughout life.

The Abandoned: Mobilized and Fighting to Reconnect

• Attachment style: Anxious/preoccupied.
• Mission: Draw attention. Repair connection. Find consistent security.
• Memory formation after conflict: Gathering positive evidence about the relationship to use as defense against abandonment.

Those who perceive themselves as abandoned may be more likely to ruminate on relationship issues above all else. They may be more likely to reach out, to draw (or demand) attention, even to create drama in order to elicit a wished-for response from others—a response that, when given, has nowhere to land. They may seek assurance while at the same time appearing unable to hear the reassurance given.

Self-abandoned in moments of intense emotion, many are unable to fully take in present-moment interactions. This sets up a kind of short-circuit that, especially in moments of panic-driven attack, perpetuates a loop of conflict and helplessness for all parties involved.

Outside of conflict, those landing on the anxious side bring needed energy into the relationship. They are generally better at talking (or at least more willing), and they use that role to bring more social movement into any relationship, in many ways keeping their partner from getting stuck in isolation (though their avoidant partner may fight them on this). They are also quite willing to do whatever it takes to preserve the relationship. They may hold any blame for relationship problems—blame and judgment their avoidant partner deflects because it feels too threatening to hold. The oppressed partner deflects while the abandoned partner willingly catches.

In the abandoned-oppressed relationship, the anxious (abandoned) role serves as the inhale: energy up, excitement and play, confrontation.

Those on the anxious side often see themselves as pursuing love “the way love is supposed to be”: never abandoning one another, sharing everything, never alone.

• Main goal: Elicit positive attention and preserve external relationship.
• Stuck place: Easily gives up self to hold on to other. Rumination without witness equals self-abandonment.
• Triggers: Partner’s disengagement, partner’s focus on somebody else, partner’s lack of energy/initiative, incongruities in communication (partner says “I love you” with a blank face), or general lack of partner communication.
• Experience: Unable to self-soothe, experiencing internal abandonment, projecting that onto the world so it feels like it is happening everywhere.

The Oppressed: Immobilized and Waiting for Safety (Alone), Permission (Relationship)

• Attachment style: Avoidant/dismissive.
• Mission: Hide and conserve. Remain small and avoid punishment. Present as low-demand/low-need. Wait (with resignation and resentment) for freedom.
• Memory formation after conflict: Gathering negative evidence about the relationship to use as deflection when trapped.

If one were to install a hidden camera in the home of an oppressed-abandoned couple, they might see a dramatic difference in behavior when the oppressed partner is alone. Many people do not realize the lengths to which someone on the avoidant (oppressed) side of attachment will go to maintain invisibility. They may just close the curtains more often, walk softer, use a quieter voice, smile to elicit safety, or remain blank-faced to avoid engagement. They may simply communicate less or keep more aspects of life secret. Many will make dinner after a partner or roommate goes to bed. To avoid arguments and “legitimize” their lack of response or conversation, some may not pay phone bills. Some may exaggerate their work schedule rather than simply asking for alone time. They may apply for lesser jobs that avoid the spotlight or become “driven” in work, living in constant effort to prove themselves and avoid judgment. They may say “I love you” when in reality they are dissociated from any emotion, because they are quite familiar with dissociation as a way of life, and for them it is easier to placate others than to face conflict and “waste time.”

When things get too close and comfortable, the anxious side stops chasing, questions, or may sabotage. At least there is control in when the “inevitable” abandonment happens. Conversely, when things get too distant, the avoidant has been known to switch tactics, even take over the pursuer role. A tolerable level of intimacy/distance is maintained between the strategies of both extremes.

To be fair, sometimes the initial rush of unseen movement is simply getting the to-do list done as quickly as possible (in the absence of an audience) in order to return to a more subdued state and possible self-regulation.

Time is often precious on this end of attachment—partially because the person lives a half-life, hibernating in the presence of others. If the abandoned side fears abandonment, the oppressed side accepts it as truth, believes they are alone, without enough support or resources to survive, and resentful of those asking to share their already insufficient resources. From the outside perspective, self-sufficiency is chosen. As the avoidant, there is no perceived choice. It is a natural reaction to a world in which need was not allowed or may have been outright punished.

There is an often marked conservation of resources on this side of attachment—a planned and monitored rationing of time, space, finances, etc. This is self-sufficient, unsupported life, and its accompanying sense of scarcity and fatalism—a frozen mix of giving up and hanging on, not taking chances, not committing to anything long-term, even hoarding what little is held. At the outer extremes, those on the avoidant side are generally well-practiced at self-denial and rationing, often resentful of a partner who seems more frivolous—a partner who lives a bit more carefree, as if there is support out there in the world, as if there is not constant judgment and anger reflected in the world.

Most often raised in a home where emotions were not reflected, those on the oppressed side remain attuned to lack of attunement from others—sometimes subconsciously wishing their partner would notice when something is wrong so it need not be spoken. Asking for help feels too vulnerable, even if the wish for help feels intense and lifelong. Behind all the blaming, deflecting, and lack of disclosure lies an intense fear of oppression and rejection—a belief communication with a partner is like giving that partner a weapon. Asking someone on the avoidant side how they are feeling can easily be perceived as entrapment.

Those who lean on avoidant strategies are generally good listeners—sometimes willingly, sometimes with resentment—accustomed to putting aside their own needs to present for others. They tend to be naturally respectful of space and boundaries, and partners often lean on them for grounding. They can be quite attuned to their partner’s needs, fulfilling them without the partner asking or noticing—modeling for their partner the kind of attunement they would like, and then blaming their partner for not noticing.

When not in conflict, the oppressed (avoidant) role serves as the exhale for the relationship: energy down, calming, resignation/acceptance (“let it rest”), renew, repair, recover, conserve (which includes ongoing calculations of available time and energy and explains the draw to the energy possessed by those more anxious).

Those on the avoidant side see themselves as pursuing relationship in a realistic way, believing everyone is alone, safe dependence does not exist, and everyone should take care of their own needs and emotions to avoid burdening others.

• Main goal: Avoid negative attention and preserve internal agency.
• Stuck place: Detachment from parts that hurt means little resolution or integration and limited change in relationships (both internal and external). Suppression of emotion can be framed as self-oppression (judgment, control, neglect of emotion).
• Triggers: Any threat to limited resources—time, money, space. Also triggered by animal-level physical signals—angry or disapproving faces, voices, volume—as these threaten safety and autonomy.
• Experience: Feeling internal contempt, projecting that onto the world so it feels like it is happening everywhere. Anger and contempt from the world also mean rejection/abandonment. While felt for moments, the abandonment is often suppressed by dissociation and/or internal judgment/contempt, with messages like “buck up and be tough.”

The Dynamics of the Dance

The dance is a draining, familiar one for all involved.

The oppressed side sees in an anxious other the exact energy it suppresses in self: the helpless, anxious child. While initially drawn to that energy with a sense of kinship, avoidant strategies automatically attempt to suppress/oppress that energy in the anxious partner as well.

Initially drawn to the security and seemingly consistent attention of their avoidant partner, the anxious side eventually realizes they are losing the intense love they felt in the beginning when their partner was so easily enamored. This triggers more panic, more fight for attention. To the avoidant side, already on guard for signs of oppression, the aggression in that panic feels like control. Disdain builds toward the abandoned, increasing the anxious panic and the avoidant withdrawal.

If either side felt safe in intimacy, this dance would not last. When things get too close and comfortable, the anxious side stops chasing, questions, or may sabotage. At least there is control in when the “inevitable” abandonment happens. Conversely, when things get too distant, the avoidant has been known to switch tactics, even take over the pursuer role. A tolerable level of intimacy/distance is maintained between the strategies of both extremes.

References:

1. Caldwell, J. G., & Shaver, P. R. (2014). Promoting attachment-related mindfulness and compassion: A wait-list-controlled study of women who were mistreated during childhood. Mindfulness, 6(3), 624-636. doi:10.1007/s12671-014-0298-y
2. Dekel, S., & Farber, B.A. (2012). Models of Intimacy of Securely and Avoidantly Attached Young Adults. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 200(2): 156 doi:10.1097/NMD.0b013e3182439702
3. Simpson, et al. (2009). Attachment working models twist memories of relationship events. Psychological Science; doi:10.1177/0956797609357175
4. Tatkin, S. (2009). Addiction to “alone time”: avoidant attachment, narcissism, and a one‐person psychology within a two‐person psychological system. The Therapist, 57(January‐February). Retrieved from http://stantatkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Addiction-to-Alone-Time.pdf
5. Tatkin, S. (2009). The plight of the avoidantly attached partner in couples therapy. New Therapist 62, 10-16. Retrieved from http://stantatkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/I-want-you-in-the-house.pdf
6. Tatkin, S. (2011). Allergic to hope: Angry resistant attachment and a one-person psychology within a two-person psychological system. Psychotherapy in Australia, 18(1), 66-73. Retrieved from http://stantatkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Allergic-to-Hope_Tatkin.pdf