Are you a fighter or a fleer? How understanding your attachment-related conflict styles can improve your couple relationship.
Dr Hannah Ryan, Clinical Psychologist and Couple’s Therapist, Two Leaves Therapy
As a couple's therapist, you start to see the same themes cropping up in sessions over and over again to the point that you think, "Someone should really write a blog on this". One of those issues is attachment styles and how they impact our preferences for conflict. Understanding this and how to manage it constructively can save you enormous struggle as a couple.
Attachment Theory, initially developed by John Bowlby in the 1950s and 1960s, describes the blueprint for relationships we hold inside ourselves, incubated in our early caregiving relationships and refined throughout our lives. As Eli Harwood, author of Securely Attached, writes, "Within each of us lies an entire universe full of our childhoods and past relationship experiences and stories. When we become close to another person, our worlds collide. Building intimacy is beautiful and exciting and expands our world, but it can also trigger past pain and knee-jerk reactions that create distance and disconnection from our partners".
Meet Jude and Fred
Take Jude. Jude grew up with an emotionally inconsistent single mother who was sometimes doting, playful and charming, and alternately distant, silent and irritable. When Jude felt like his mother was "off" with him, he felt wretched; she was his world, and he couldn't settle until things were right between them. He would become hypervigilant, monitor her reactions, watch her movements, ask her questions, try to make her laugh, provoke an argument and do anything he could to resolve the conflict and seek reassurance that they were okay. After he prodded her, they would argue, but it would burst the bubble of her silent treatment; her mood would explode like a volcano and settle again, and once the atmosphere had changed, his body would flood with relief. Jude most likely has an anxious-preoccupied-ambivalent attachment pattern. Keyword: preoccupied.
Now, take Fred. Fred grew up with a widowed father who had unresolved grief and was raised by the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps generation". Fred's father hid photographs of Fred's mother and encouraged a practical, pragmatic, logical approach to life. He gave his son an awkward pat on the back at significant events, but otherwise, there was little warmth, affection or playfulness. Fred and his father mostly got along, in a roommate sort of way, but if there was tension, they ignored it until it passed. They never argued- not openly. Fred learned that no one was there to help soothe his feelings; whether he felt sorrow, shame, disappointment, despair, rage, he cried into his pillow alone. When he was sick, he made his own soup. When he was sad, he did not complain. So, he learned to white knuckle his way through his emotions until they passed. Emotion, for Fred, was something that existed within bodies, not between them. Fred most likely has an insecure-anxious-avoidant attachment pattern. Keyword: avoidant.
Fred and Jude in the present day
Fred and Jude have been married for two years. They have a long-standing resentment about how much socialising they do, which often comes to a head after significant events. The details are not necessary. What is important is how they resolve it. What do you think happens after they come home from a friend's party after tension has been building?
That's right. Fred withdraws. He learned to deal with his emotions by himself. He thinks it's not a big deal and will resolve if they leave it alone. Jude, who uses Fred to regulate his emotions, cannot stand that Fred is not communicating with him. He wants to fight right now because he cannot bear the feeling of internal discomfort and emotional abandonment as Fred pulls away from him. Sensing Jude's neediness, Fred feels it as an intrusion and finds it completely overwhelming. He cannot think, and he cannot process; he cannot make sense of his feelings with another person; he needs quiet time and space with them alone first. He needs space. He finds Jude's demands to process and talk it out right now to be too much; he doesn't know what he feels yet.
Jude is distraught that Fred does not seem to care enough about the relationship to work things out. He feels rejected and left by himself with his feelings, which are intense. He feels alone, invalidated and unheard. So, Fred withdraws, and Jude pursues. Fred seeks space, and Jude seeks reassurance. Fred seeks quiet, and Jude seeks connection. Fred seeks silence, and Jude seeks resolution. After multiple explosions over a matter of weeks, they agree to give Fred some space when tension arises, but then things end up being avoided entirely until Jude explodes, and then, finally, they both agree: this is not working.
Philosopher Alain de Botton speaks about this kind of predicament in his video, The Challenges of Anxious Avoidant Relationships with his characteristic insight and eloquence:
"[Eventually] desperation erupts. Even if it is a very inappropriate moment (perhaps they and their partner are exhausted, and it's past midnight, they won't be able not to insist on addressing the issues right now). Predictably, these sorts of fights go very wrong. The anxious lover loses their calm. They exaggerate and drive their points home with such viciousness that they leave their partner convinced that they are mad and mean. A securely attached partner might know how to soothe the situation, but an avoidant one certainly doesn't. Tragically, this avoidant party triggers every insecurity known to their anxious lover. Under pressure to be warmer and more connected, the avoidant partner instinctively feels overwhelmed and hounded. They go cold- and disconnect from the situation- only further ramping up the partner's anxiety".
Space versus confrontation: which is best?
Couples therapists the world over hear some version of this every week in their practice. Couples therapists themselves are not immune, for we are human too with attachment patterns and relationships to other humans with attachment patterns which are sometimes compatible and sometimes not. And here is the million-dollar question: which is better? To resolve or avoid? Who is right: Fred or Jude?
The answer is that they are both right and they are both wrong, in the sense that both space and resolution are essential to healthy repair in a couple's relationship. However, when couples fall into these reactive patterns without collaboration or balance, neither gets what they need.
Why is space important?
Let's first look at why space is essential. When we attempt to resolve when we are in the heat of the moment, we are on a one-way path to escalation.
Dan Hughes explains this with his hand model of the brain, which he calls "flipping your lid". From fMRI studies, we know that when we "flip our lids" (a tame American term for going bananas with rage), the pattern of activation changes in our brain. Specifically, we lose our ability to resource the prefrontal cortex, the site of our mature and healthy regulation, and rely on evolutionarily older structures such as the limbic system, the amygdala and the brain stem. Hughes talks about several functions that are lost when this happens, including:
The ability to pause between impulse and response (impulse control)
The ability to filter out things we know we shouldn't say that could cause hurt
The ability to perspective take and put ourselves in other people's shoes
The ability to think flexibly and consider multiple explanations
The ability to take feedback openly and accept it without becoming defensive
The ability to regulate our own emotions in a healthy way
In other words, we become the worst version of ourselves when we are angry, and this is when the most relational damage is done. We say things that are mean, harsh, defensive and critical; we are prone to shouting and arguing because we want to be right, and we are not open to genuinely listening or trying to understand.
Why is resolution important?
However, avoiding all issues is a recipe for resentment, which can grow like mould into contempt, one of relationship researcher John Gottman's four horsemen of the relationship apocalypse. When we avoid discomfort entirely because we cannot repair, relationships become fragile, and unresolved feelings seep out in other ways: in a snappy tone, passive aggression, withdrawal of intimacy, a disproportionate reaction to something ostensibly minor which is really not about that thing but which is actually about the other thing, or about a cumulative effect of many things that have not been dealt with.
One of the most aversive states for human beings is bearing pain or hurt inside of us, which has not been soothed by understanding. Repair is not about problem-solving or finding practical solutions; it is about giving each other enough of a sense of being heard and understood. Without that need being met, relationships cannot survive.
So, what can we do? Strike while the iron is cold.
We can strike while the iron is cold, which means doing several different things.
Agree collaboratively to take a time out when things are heated. Consent to this beforehand, and ensure that this is collaborative. Make a firm commitment to discuss the issue later, especially if the dispute is upsetting enough to one or both people. In the moment, it is vital that space is taken with sensitivity to the other partner in a way that does not abandon or punish, especially by the avoidant partner. You are human and will be triggered, but you could say something like, "Look, I think I'm feeling a bit heated, and we've both had a couple of drinks. I know this is important to you, and I do want to hear your perspective because this relationship matters. I know you want to talk about this now, but I'd really appreciate it if we could sleep on it, and I will commit to coming back and talking about it over dinner tomorrow. You have my word. I am not doing this to avoid; I am doing this to preserve things because we've been doing well lately, and I don't want our dynamic to go south". It is also important that the avoidant partner honours their commitment to come back to the discussion rather than, well, continuing to avoid - otherwise, their partner will continue to feel abandoned and this will become unbearable.
Decide when to let go and when to come back to an argument. This might include drawing up a list of critical issues and themes that you will always come back to resolve because they are just too serious: for example, money arguments, fears of infidelity, and arguments over in-laws. But you might decide to let go of other issues, such as arguments over housework on a case-by-case basis. You must always check with your partner whether you both consent to let an argument drop; otherwise, one person will likely carry unresolved resentment. For example, you might say, "I know we said we'd come back to last night's cooking issue, but I feel we resolved that pretty well just by texting about a rota today. I don't want to be avoidant, though. Do you still want to talk about it?" Or "I know we need to come back to the argument from the weekend, and neither of us will feel like it, but we've calmed down now, and we can have a better discussion. I can start with an apology on my end. What do you think?
Strike while the iron is cold. This is a phrase from a parenting programme called Non-Violent Resistance (NVR). In this case, the iron means your brain. SWTIIC means committing to coming back and discussing the issue when your body is not pumping so much cortisol, and your prefrontal cortex is back online. This should be a reparative conversation that will not be entirely comfortable or without challenge but is "warm" rather than hot and feels "good enough". In other words, you should reach a "good enough" level of understanding, a "good enough" level of resolution and retain a "good enough level of de-escalation."
Note: if there is never any “cold”; if arguments are always escalating even when you give it space, that might be a sign that it is time to bring in a third party (a couple’s therapist) to help you untangle things and regulate the heat between you more effectively.
Final thoughts
Having peaked through Fred and Jude’s fictional front door, do you lean more towards being a fleer like Fred or a fighter like Jude? Perhaps neither of these labels is quite right, but understanding your attachment-related conflict styles can be a game-changer in your relationship. Both styles, rooted in individual attachment patterns, made complete sense in each partner's history- and both styles bring unique strengths and challenges.
The key lies in finding a subtle balance between space and resolution. This approach involves biting your tongue in the heat of the moment so that harmful things are not said, speaking with respect and giving each other room to cool down while committing to revisit and addressing important issues with humility, goodwill, courage and collaboration to prevent bottled resentment.
Striking while the iron is cold allows for more thoughtful, empathetic, and constructive conversations when you are your "best self" rather than yourself at your most triggered. Ultimately, it's not about who is right or wrong; it's about creating a relational space that is imperfect but in which both partners feel heard, understood, and valued enough. It is about constructing a dynamic in which conflict can be resolved in ways that are neither catastrophically explosive nor catastrophically avoidant.
As Eli Harwood notes, building intimacy inevitably triggers past pain. However, navigating relationships with self-awareness, commitment and courage can break generational cycles and lead to more robust and peaceful connections.
Resources to watch
School of Life, the Challenges of Anxious-Avoidant Relationships: (95) The Challenges of Anxious-Avoidant Relationships - YouTube
School of Life, the Secret of Successful Relationships, Rupture and Repair: The Secret of Successful Relationships: Rupture and Repair (youtube.com)
School of Life, How Not to Be Defensive in Relationships: How Not to Be Defensive in Relationships (youtube.com)
Dan Hughes: Flipping Your Lid: Dan Siegel - "Flipping Your Lid:" A Scientific Explanation (youtube.com)
Resources to read
The Gottman Institute: Four Horseman of Couple Relationships: The Four Horsemen: Criticism, Contempt, Defensiveness, & Stonewalling (gottman.com)
Philippa Perry, the Book You Want Everyone You Love to Read.
