“Avoidant” partners often attempt to protect the relationship during conflict by pulling away. This is ironic given that Dr. John Gottman has identified stonewalling – emotional withdrawal from interaction – one of the four best predictors of divorce.

Obviously, reducing conflict is one way to avoid triggering this response, however, conflict in our dance with our closest relations is inevitable. So how exactly does one have a fair fight with an “avoidant” without destroying the relationship? Dr. Rebecca Jorgensen and I explore this subject in our latest podcast.

http://wefulness.com/podcasts/006-HowToHaveAnArgumentWithAnAvoidantPartner.mp3

If the player does not show, you can click here to listen: 006 – How to Have an Argument with an Avoidant Partner.

—

Transcript

Welcome to Wefulness where we discuss the science of profound connection.  I’m Wefulness co-editor Gregory Blake.  Today we are talking with relationship expert Dr. Rebecca Jorgensen.

G:  Hi Becca.

R:  Hey Greg.

G:  I have a question that’s been in my mind for a while now.  With so much of the avoidants’ behavior being pulling away, I wonder how do you have a fair argument with someone who is avoidant?  If you can’t talk to them or that is sort of my impression so I need some clarification on it.  How do we actually have disagreements?  Cause disagreements happen in all relationships, so I’m curious.

R:  Okay, well that’s a great question, first off.  None of us really like to have arguments, but we know invariably that they’re going to happen when we are walking in close proximity to someone, we end up stepping on each other’s toes.  Or the analogy that Sue Johnson would use, we’re dancing with someone in a close relationship; we’ll end up tripping up on each other, stepping on each other’s toes.  At those times, that’s when we’re really talking about.  What happens then if the person that you are dancing with is avoidant?  And when you get tripped up, what they want to do is get off the dance floor.  That’s kind of the question, right?

G:  Yeah, totally.

R:  So, there are a couple of great ways to handle this.  And one of the things that avoidants do is emotionally shut down.  Sometimes physically go away, but generally what they do is emotionally shut down.  So, kind of the heart, the openness, the willingness to engage – that becomes very protected.  It’s a way of protecting the relationship really.  If we are going to get in conflict.  If that conflict then would lead to a rupture in the relationship, I’m not going to want to be in conflict.  And that’s kind of where the avoidant comes from.  So shut down the heart.  Go into protective mode, protect the relationship and protect that emotional disconnection from elevating, from getting bigger. And the discussion from getting more intense.  So it’s really around getting away from emotional intensity.  So one of the ways that you can have an argument is to one, not have it be personal, not to personalize it; to be logical, stay cool, calm and collected.  And not make it so that whatever it is you got tripped up about puts the relationship at risk.  That’s really what they are avoiding, is putting the relationship at risk.

G:    Is there a special way to say…someone’s husband is an avoidant, but is always leaving the toilet seat up.  What would be the appropriate way to deal with that?  Is there a special way to say that?

R:  Well, what would typically happen is someone would say, “Hey, you know, we’ve talked about this 10,000 times and here it is. You’re still leaving the toilet seat up.  What’s going on here?”  Right?  That’s the common approach that we would have that really starts disagreements.  So for one, the tone is critical. And there is some sort of, “What’s the matter with you.” Blame, in that tone, and it really leaves out kind of an opportunity of, “What are your [...]

When I think of avoidant individuals, for some reason what comes to mind is a certain “smoking man” magazine ad – the strong, silent, solo cowboy looking over the herd. I think of someone who likes to get away from everyone else to think.

But in retrospect, is that characterization correct? In our latest podcast I ask the silly question: What is the difference between an introvert and an avoidant?

http://wefulness.com/podcasts/005-IntrovertedvsAvoidant.mp3

 

If the player does not show, you can click here to listen: 005 – Introverted vs Avoidant.

Attachment theory tells us that there are three main attachment styles: secure, anxious and avoidant. However, some people will insist that they have been more than one “style” in their lifetime. Is that possible? If yes, what is happening in that situation? Is there hope to move from an insecure attachment style to secure?

In our latest podcast, Rebecca and I discuss these questions and more with Dr. Phil Shaver,  “the father of adult attachment theory.”

http://www.wefulness.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/003-Changeable-Attachment-Styles-featuring-Dr.-Phil-Shaver.mp3

If the player does not show, you can click here to listen: 003 – Changeable Attachment Styles featuring Dr. Phil Shaver

 

 

—

Transcript

(Please note: The audio is transcribed “as is,” spoken grammar glitches and all.)

Today we are talking with relationship expert Dr. Rebecca Jorgensen and special guest, researcher, Dr. Phil Shaver.

G:  Hi Becca.

R:  Hey Greg, how are you doing?

G:  Really good today, thanks.  Today’s short clip from Dr. Shaver’s interview has mostly to do with changeability of adult attachment styles.  And this is something that I know we’ve talked about in the past and, frankly, I didn’t understand it.  I had read the book, “Attached” and really loved that book actually, and out of that context I was under the persuasion that adult attachment was something that we were born with or at least we got initially when we were younger, and then that is where we were stuck and that we had to deal with the consequences of that and adapt to that.  What I’m getting from the interview with Dr. Shaver is that, no, there is some flexibility there. Can you talk a little about that before we get to the interview?

R:  Yeah, it’s so good.  I mean it’s so hopeful isn’t it?  That our brains, our neuropsychology, our brains are plastic you know.  We grow and change and we do adapt.  And so I think it’s just such a hopeful thing that if we were raised in a situation where it wasn’t, you know, the best or it was the best at the time, but it left us with insecurities; maybe even with some major insecurities or maybe even was a very traumatic situation, that we’re not stuck with that.  Whatever situation we were born into or what happened to us in our early development that we can, as adults, actually make conscious choices and learn and adapt and change.  And that even sometimes even unconsciously just being in different relationships brings out different aspects of us and new experience changes us.  We grow and we change.  The brain is plastic and we’re able to, across our life span, have different kinds of relationships and take relationships that are very important to us but may have places that are difficult for us and resolve and heal and change.  It’s just such a hopeful message.

G:  Awesome.  Okay, well let’s listen to what Dr. Shaver had to say about that.

—

G:  The other big skeptical thing I hear from people is, “I’ve been both anxious and avoidant in my life, how does that work?”

Dr. Shaver:   Yeah, this is why I think it’s good to have the primary concept be a strategy for achieving what you need in relationships and the idea of the theory itself was, in infancy, that kid could have been anything.  And if the parents were different, the kid is different with them.  This has already been demonstrated in, “A Strange Situation”.  So, the kid is capable of adopting a strategy to fit the parental environment, or whatever that caregiver could be a daycare person if they are with one of those for a long time.  So all of us have a capacity to be moved around.  I think of this in a two-dimensional space, then it can be moved around in that space.  I don’t think they can be moved from one extreme region of of it to another.  But everybody moves around.  There are some interesting social psych studies now showing that at the beginning of the relationship when [...]

Attachment theory tells us that we are made to be connected to others. However, a lot of the initial research involved mothers and children. Does it apply to adults as well? In our latest podcast, Rebecca and I talk about this with Dr. Phil Shaver, considered by many to be “the father of adult attachment theory.”

 

http://www.wefulness.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/002-Attachment-and-Adults-featuring-Dr.-Phil-Shaver.mp3

If the player does not show, you can click here to listen: 002 – Attachment and Adults featuring Dr. Phil Shaver

—

Transcript

(Please note: The audio is transcribed “as is,” spoken grammar glitches and all.)

G:  Today we are talking with relationship expert Dr. Rebecca Jorgensen and special guest, researcher Dr. Phil Shaver.

G:  Hi Becca!

R:  Hey there Greg, so nice to talk to you today.

G:  In the next few podcasts we’ll be presenting our interview with Dr. Shaver about adult attachment and I’m finding that the concept is quite new to people – at least the adult part.  People are often perplexed that it even applies to adults because so much of the original research is about the mother-child bond.  Can you talk about those roots?

R:  Well yes I can, and that is exactly right.  It did start… the research started on attachment with the mother-child bond.  Originally John Bowlby, who kind of founded attachment theory, or did create attachment theory, was looking at the infant and caregiver relationship, but he also addressed that  attachment lasts across the life-span.  He talked about it as a cradle…from the cradle to the grave… that we all have these attachment processes.  And so it did start, kind of looking, the research specifically, in developmental psychology, looking at children and care givers.  But Dr. Shaver especially kind of put it on the map looking through a social psychology lens at adult attachment.

G:  In the segment of our interview that I want to play, Dr. Shaver references the strange situation test.  Can you talk about that?

R:  Yeah, Mary Ainsworth was a colleague of John Bowlby and started out as a follower of his theory and she took research on attachment, really created a procedure to test attachment, the level of security that people have in relationship.  And she looked at, took parents and children and introduced them into a strange situation – thus the name of the research, “The Strange Situation.”  And this strange situation was entering them into what was a research room, but looked a lot like a kind of a play room or a waiting room with toys in it.  And so she would have the parent and child come in, introduce them to the room, bring in a lab assistant who would be pretending to be just another person in this playroom, to kind of play with the child.  And then have the parent leave the room and come back, kind of come and go and see how the child responded.  And they were able to predict certain things from…they originally started some of this looking at the attachment in the homes, Mary Ainsworth did, in the field work and then she moved it into the lab through this strange situation procedure – which is really great because we’ve learned so much about attachment styles in this childhood pattern, from the strange situation.  The idea is really that under stress, that we need, we have higher needs for support.  Like we always needed as a baseline, that we are social creatures and we always need to be in supportive contact with other people.  But under stressful situations and new situations or strange situations that are new – are more stressful to us. We don’t know what to expect.  And those times are heightened needs for the attachment relationship.  So Mary Ainsworth developed this procedure to be able to look at attachment, how people respond in these situations, particularly children, and we’ve been able to put that, overlay that onto adults later and it’s just been really seminal research from [...]

What if just 4 minutes a day could improve your relationship with your heartmate. The 2 minute miracle is the subject of our first podcast.

http://www.wefulness.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/WEfulness-001-The-2-Minute-Miracle.mp3

If the player doesn’t show, you can click here to listen: WEfulness 001 – The 2 Minute Miracle

For further information, you can read the article that inspired the broadcast: 2 Minute Miracle by Shane Adamson

—

Transcript

(Please note: The audio is transcribed “as is,” spoken grammar glitches and all.)

Welcome to Wefulness where we discuss the science of profound connection.  I am WEfulness co-director Gregory Blake.  Today we are talking with relationship expert Dr. Rebecca Jorgensen.  Besides being a professional psychologist and licensed counselor, she is also my co-editor and the professional voice at WEfulness.com.

G:  Hi Becca, it’s great to finally get in touch with you.

R:  Oh yeah, it’s so good to talk to you.  I’ve really been looking forward to today.

G:  The reason I wanted to talk to you today was mostly because of something you sent me from a colleague of yours the other day.  I believe the title is “The 2 Minute Miracle” and I was wondering if you could talk first about the issue he was trying to address.

R:  So yes, a colleague of mine, Shane Adamson, wrote up in one of his blogs, “The 2 Minute Miracle”.  He’s really trying to address how couples can work on keeping their connection because what happens when we go throughout the day and throughout our relationship is we can kind of stop putting the kind of energy into it that really keeps it fresh.  And partings and greetings are attachment significant moments.  Really relevant moments in every day that we have in partings and greetings.  So he wrote this little formula called, “The 2 Minute Miracle” – how to spend a couple of minutes every day that’s very significant around attachment moments to build and strengthen the loving relationship.

G:  Where would we see the problem with that?  With our comings and goings of coming together and leaving our partner.  What sorts of things turn into problems in that situation?

R:  Well, we can get a little laissez faire about it; a little too relaxed about it.  Get comfortable with each other, which is really great, but so comfortable that we can kind of run in automatic without making comings and goings a significant part of our day, and they are significant.  Having our loved one come or leave is a significant moment.  I can remember one couple talking about their relationship after 9/11 –   being much more aware in that they didn’t ever want to leave the house if they were distressed with each other.  They wanted to make sure that when they parted, that they had said, “I love you”  – that they had let the other one know how special they are to each other.  So comings and goings are really relevant to our attachment bond and partings especially, and then at reunion, to kind of reconnect.  Make sure that we are back in each other’s forefront; that we are there; that we’re connected; to acknowledge and to embrace each other is really important for keeping that bond fresh.

G:  I can actually relate.  I know for the last year…my marriage is very important to me, I’ve been married for 28 years now, but even for myself, I found coming home from school as a school teacher, I was looking for a little peace and quiet and my initial, until I caught myself doing it, I had developed a habit where I just go almost straight to my den, find a quiet spot and check my email and things.  And it wasn’t very long before I figured out that that was probably not a good thing.  And then I had to say “Hi” to my wife and just check in at the end of the day.  Can you describe what his solution was?  His 2 minute miracle?

R:  Sure, his solution is really similar to what you’re describing, that check in moment.  The [...]