StanTatkin,Psy.D.

Partner
Attachment
Inventory
*Notfordistribution

ThisdocumentwasupdatedfortheLoveandWarInIntimate
Relationshipsworkshop(LosAngelesandSeattle2007).
Revisionnumberscanbetrackedonthefooterofeachpage.

Readersshouldunderstandthisisanincompletedocument
andaworkinprogress.Pleasecheckfornewerversionson
www.ahealthymind.org/csg.

P a g e |1

StanTatkin,Psy.D.(805)4996171

Copyright2007StanTatkin,Psy.D.allrightsreserved

Revision#7
AttachmentInventory

INTRODUCTION

Thisinventory is adoptedandadaptedfromMaryMainandErikHesse'sAdult

AttachmentInterview.Thisparticularadaptationisnottobeusedasaresearch

toolorasamethodtoassessyourpatients.Ratheryoucanviewitasan

interventiontooltobeusedbothduringtheinitialsessionandthroughoutthe

courseoftherapy.Ifinditveryimportanttocapturetheinterestofthemost

avoidantpartnerattheverybeginningoftherapy.ThisiswhyIcustomarilyuse

thisattachmentinventory attheverybeginning,ifpossible,asawaytoconvert

themostavoidantpartner'segosyntonicbehaviorintosomethingconsiderably

moreegodystonic.

TheactualAdultAttachmentInterview(AAI)isanexquisitelydesigned

instrumentwithahighlycomplexcodingsystemthatrequiresintensivetwo

weektraining,andthat'sjustthebeginning.Whatfollowsisanalmostyear

longprocessofbecoming"reliable"atcoding.Thoseofuswhohavegone

throughthetrainingknowthatitcanbeafrustratinglearningprocess

particularlyforpsychotherapistsbecauseitisafundamentallyflat,linguistic

researchtoolfordeterminingadultattachmentclassification.Still,evenifone

doesnotfollowthroughtobecomeareliablecoder,theinitialtrainingprocess

canbeprofoundlytransformingforthepsychotherapist.IsayallthisbecauseI

P a g e |2

StanTatkin,Psy.D.(805)4996171

Copyright2007StanTatkin,Psy.D.allrightsreserved

Revision#7
 haveadoptedagreatlyabbreviatedandmodifiedversionoftheinterviewfor

clinicalusewithcouples.AlthoughIamcomfortablewithmyclinical

integrationoftheAAI(extremelyusefulforgeneralassessmentand

interventionpurposes),Iworrywhenitcomestoteachingthistostudentsand

otherclinicians.Ibelievethereisavastdifferencebetweenmyunderstanding

ofthisrichinstrumentandtheCliffNoteversionyouareabouttoreceivefrom

me.IhighlyrecommendtoanyoneinterestedintheAAItotakethetraining

beforelaunchingprematurelyintousingitforassessmentandresearch

purposes.

INSTRUCTIONS

Dothisinterviewwithbothpartnerspresentandadministertoonepersonata

time.Completebothinterviewswithoutgivinganyexplanationor

interpretation.Donotallowtheotherpartnertointerveneoraddinformation.

Wewanttostresstheinterviewee'smemorybothdeclarative(left

hemisphere)andautobiographical(righthemisphere).Inordertoaccomplish

this,theinterviewer(you)musthavetimeandlatitudetopushtheinterviewee

forconcretememoriesthatsupporthisorhernarrativeclaims.Althoughitis

bestperhapstodothisinsequence,itisnotessential.Forinstance,youmay

wanttospendmoretimewithapartneryoususpectismostresistanttobeing

intherapyandisleastindistress.Theotherpartnermayholdlesscuriosityfor

youandthereforeyoumaywishtospendlesstime.Ineithercasebesureto

followupwiththequestionsetthatasksforfivedescriptionsofmaternaland

paternalrelationshipsduringchildhood.

P a g e |3

StanTatkin,Psy.D.(805)4996171

Copyright2007StanTatkin,Psy.D.allrightsreserved

Revision#7
Allquestionsstartoffvague.Thepowerofthisinterviewresidesinthefollow

upquestions.Theinterviewermustpushfordetailedmemoriesthatsupport

initialresponses.Forinstance,theintervieweeinresponsetothequestion,

"Whodidyouruntowhenyouwereinjuredasachild?"says,Mymother."

Thefollowupquestiontothisis,"Givemeamemorywhenyouwereinjuredas

achildandyourantoyourmother."Drilldownuntilyoucannotelicitanymore

informationspecifictothequestion.Somepatientsmaywanttotalkabout

otherthingsandstrayfromtheinterview.Keephimorherfocusedonthe

interview.

Responsesthatareproblematicandrequirefollowup:

1. Idon'tremember.
2. Wealways...
3. Heorshealways...

Becausewearelookingattheattachmentrelationshipwithprimary

attachmentfigureswewantresponsesthatarespecificandpersonalthatcan

bebackedbyautobiographicalmemory(experience).

P a g e |4

StanTatkin,Psy.D.(805)4996171

Copyright2007StanTatkin,Psy.D.allrightsreserved

Revision#7
HOWTHISWORKS

P a g e |5

StanTatkin,Psy.D.(805)4996171

Copyright2007StanTatkin,Psy.D.allrightsreserved

Revision#7


THEINTERVIEW

1) Whenyouwereachildandyouwereinjuredwhodidyourunto?

a) Givemeamemorywhenyouwereinjuredasachildandyourantohimorher.

i) Howfastcouldheorshecomfortyou?Howgoodwasthatpersonatcalmingyoudown?

Givemeanumberbetween1and10(terribletowonderful;veryincompetenttovery

competent;cannotcalmyoutocancalmyouveryquickly).

ii) Howdidheorshereacttoyourinjury?Whatwasthelookonhisorherface?Didheorshe

pickyouupandholdyou?Whatwasthesoundofhisorhervoice?

2) Whenyouwereachildandyouweresickwhotookcareofyou?

a) Givemeamemorywhenyouweresickasachildandheorshetookcareofyou.

P a g e |6

StanTatkin,Psy.D.(805)4996171

Copyright2007StanTatkin,Psy.D.allrightsreserved

Revision#7
 i) Whatdidheorshedotocareforyou?Didheorshespendtimewithyouwhileyouwere

sick?Strokeyourhead?Liedownwithyou?Readtoyou?Playgameswithyou?Reassure

you?

3) Whenyouwereachildandyougotupsetwhathappened?

a) [Somepeoplecannotmakesenseoftheword"upset"andneedfurtherprompting;ifthis

happensrestatethequestionfirstwithoutchangingthequestion.]

i) Iffurtherpromptingisnecessaryyoucansay,"Whenyoubecameupseteithertowardyour

parentsoraroundyourparentswhatwouldhappen?"Ifthisstillconfusestheinterviewee

youcansay,"Ifyouarecryingandyouwereupsetaboutsomethingorsomeonewillwhich

herparentsdoaboutthat?"Oryoumightwanttoadd,"Ifyougotangryatsomeoneinyour

familyhowwouldyourparentsreact?Andhowwouldtheyreactifyoucameangrywith

them?"

ii) Youmayhavetoremindyourpatientthatthismemorymustbebeforetheageof13.

4) Whenyouwereachildwhoputyoutobedatnight?

a) Didyouhavearegularbedtime?Whattimewasit?Wastherearitual?Didheorshereadto

you?Didheorsheaskyouaboutyourday?Didheorshesingtoyou?

b) Doyourememberfeelingsafeatnightinbed?Couldyoucalloutforoneofyourparentsand

wouldtheycometoyou?Whathappenedwhenyouhadanightmare?

5) Dideitherparentholdyou,kissyou,scratchyourback,orwasaffectionatewithyouinanyway?

a) Givemeaspecificmemory?

6) Whostoodupforyou(adult)?

P a g e |7

StanTatkin,Psy.D.(805)4996171

Copyright2007StanTatkin,Psy.D.allrightsreserved

Revision#7
 a) Didheorshestandupforyouinpublicevenwhenyoudidwrong?

b) Didheorshereprimandyouinprivate?

7) Givemefiveadjectivesthatwoulddescribeyourrelationshipwithyourmotherwhenyouwerea

child.AfterwardI'mgoingtoaskyoutosupporteachadjectivewithamemory.

8) Givemefiveadjectivesthatwoulddescribeyourrelationshipwithyourfatherwhenyouwereachild.

AfterwardI'mgoingtoaskyoutosupporteachadjectivewithamemory.

9) Didanythingfrighteninghappentoyouwhenyouwereachild?

a) Givemethememory.

i) Whowasinvolved?

ii) Dideitherparentcomfortyou;helpyoutocopewiththeevent?

10) Didyousufferabiglossofanykindwhenyouwereachild?

a) Givemethememory.

i) Whowasinvolved?

ii) Dideitherparentcomfortyou;helpyoutocopewiththeevent?

11) Dideitherparenteverlookatyouintheeyeandsaysomethinglike,Ireallyloveyou,orIamso

proudofyou,oryouareaterrifickid,oranythingfreshandpositivethatwasmeantforjustyou?

FOLLOWINGUP

P a g e |8

StanTatkin,Psy.D.(805)4996171

Copyright2007StanTatkin,Psy.D.allrightsreserved

Revision#7
 Nowletmetaketheseoneatatimeandelaborate.Bytheway,bychildImean

beforetheageof13.Inallcaseswearelookingforspecificmemoriesinvolving

theintervieweewiththeattachmentfigure.

1. Wewantspecificmemoriesandwewantdetailespeciallyinregardstotheattachmentfigures

reactionandabilitytocalmandsoothethepatient.

2. Sameasabovebutwealsowanttoknowtheattitudeoftheparenttheamountoftimeparents

spentwiththechildandwhatkindofsoothing,stimulation,andengagementthattookplace.

3. Thewordupsetisgeneralandthat'sagoodplacetostart.Wewanttoknowwhathappened

whenthechildbecamesad,frightenedorangrythoughyoumaynotsaythosewordsunlessall

otheroptionshavebeenexhausted.Didheorsheinteractwiththeparents,thefamilypet,or

remainbyhimorherself.Didheorsheexpressangerandifsohowdideachparent?

4. Ithinkitisinterestingtoknowthesleepinghabitssetinchildhoodespeciallythetransition

periodbetweenwakefulnessandsleep.Wasthereanusheringofthattransitionbyoneorboth

parents?Wasthechildreadtooursongtoatnight?Wastherearoutine?Didheorshehaveto

puthimorherselftobedallthetime?Ifindthereisacorrelationbetweenwake/sleep

transitioninginchildhoodandtheadultromanticrelationship.Thisisespeciallysoifonepartner

commonlyfallsasleepbeforetheother.

5. Wewanttoknowifsomebody,namelyanadult,protectedthechildinpublicwhenunderattack.

Howeverwealsowanttoknowwhetherthatparentinprivateutilizedthesituationforlearning

properbehavior,rightfromwrong,takingresponsibility,etc.

6. Makenoteoftheadjectivesandwhetherornotthey'reallpositive,allnegative,oramixture.

Askthepatientonebyonetoprovideamemoryfromchildhoodthatwouldsupportthe
P a g e |9

StanTatkin,Psy.D.(805)4996171

Copyright2007StanTatkin,Psy.D.allrightsreserved

Revision#7
 adjectives.Wewantproof.Lookforaclearcutmemorywithdetailinvolvingjustthepatientand

thatperson.Lookforresponsessuchas"Idon'tknow"or"shealwaysdidsuchandsuch"or"she

tookusto..."Weonlywantdyadicwiththemexperiencesbetweentheattachmentfiguresand

thechild.

7. SameasabovebutwithFather.

Tosumupwearelookingforseveralthingscontainedintheinterviewee's

responsestoourquestionsincludingamountofdetail,mixtureofnegative

andpositivedescriptionsofattachmentfigures,realsupportoftheadjectives,

freshresponsesandnotonesthatarerehearsed,etcetera.

INTERPRETATION

Whatfollowsisanoverviewoftheinterpretationprocesswhichmayverywell

beconfusingforthoseunfamiliarwithattachmentsystems.Theinterpretation

processinvolvesmuchmorethaniswrittenhereandinmuchmoredetail.The

analysisIprovidemakesuseofmyknowledgeofneurologicalstructureand

functionaswellasmemorysystemssuchasexplicitandimplicitsystemsofthe

leftandrighthemispheres,respectively.WiththatinmindIofferthisbriefand

woefullyincompletesynopsisofthisveryimportantfinalstepofthisinterview.

P a g e |10

StanTatkin,Psy.D.(805)4996171

Copyright2007StanTatkin,Psy.D.allrightsreserved

Revision#7
Insecureangry/resistant/preoccupiedindividualswilltendtohavenarratives

thatareangrier.Theirdescriptionsandmemoriesmaycontainextensive

content.Theirdescriptionsmaybemorenegative.

Insecureavoidant/dismissiveindividualswilltendtobevaguerandless

detailed.Memoriesareoftenlacking.Theymayreportallpositiveintheir

adjectivesbuttheymayreportallnegativeaswell.Theirresponseswillnotbe

fresh.

Manypeoplewillclaimthattheirmemoryispoor.However,autobiographical

memoryishighlyresilientevenatthestartofdementias.Resilientmemories

areencodedbyexperiencesthathaveemotionalvalence,andemotions,

particularlythoseproducedbytheamygdala,leadtotheproductionof

adrenalinenecessaryforencodingthesememories.Interactions,especially

thosewithattachmentfigures,tendtoamplifyarousalandaffect.Thesecanbe

negativeorpositiveamplificationsbutthestimulousistheemotionally

valencedinteractionwithimportantattachmentfigures.Theseareinteractions

thataremeantforusandusaloneandandthuswerememberthem.Chronic

lackofautobiographicalmemoryinvolvingearlyattachmentfiguresoften

pointstoneglectinthefollowingmanner:Likelybothparentsdismissed

attachmentbehaviorstoooftenavoidingfacetoface,skintoskininteraction

withtheirchildren.

P a g e |11

StanTatkin,Psy.D.(805)4996171

Copyright2007StanTatkin,Psy.D.allrightsreserved

Revision#7
Patientswithincoherentautobiographicalnarratives,suchasthoseviolating

Grice'smaxims1, maybeviewedashavingunresolvedloss,trauma,orboth.

Patientswithunresolvedtraumaorlossmayattimesappeardisorganizedor

disoriented,yettheirattachmentstatuscanstillbethatofsecureorinsecure.

Aftercompletingtheinterviewwithbothpartners,thetherapistcanmake

commentsbothaboutthecouplesystemandindividualpartners.Weare

establishingourbasisfortreatmentthroughthelensofearlyattachment

formationandusingtheinformationfromtheinterviewtohelpexplaintothe

couplehow,atleastinthisoneareaofattachment,theymightbewell

matchedbutalsoexpectedtohavesomedifficulty.Themajorityofthetime

partnersarealreadysurprisedbyinformationheardduringtheinterview

process.Theinterpretationprocessbythetherapisthelpsthecouple

understandnotonlythepurposeoftheinterviewbutitsmeaningaswell.

Properexplanationofthepurposefortheattachmentinterviewdependsupon

thetherapist'sknowledgeandunderstandingofneuralnetworksandmemory

systems.Inaddition,thetherapist,inordertomakeproperinterpretations,

mustpossessathoroughunderstandingofinternalworkingmodels.Thisis

1
IamunabletofullyelaborateGrice'smaximshere.Togreatlysimplify,Grice's
maximsreferredtothespeakersabilitytomaintainanarrativewithacoherent
flowforthelistener.Inotherwords,thespeakerisabletomakecertainthe
listenercanfollowalong.Errorsinvolvegrossconfusionswithregardtoperson,
place,andtime.Anexamplemightbetospeakofanattachmentfigurewhois
deadasifheorsheisaliveandthenmomentslaterasdeadagain.Another
examplemightincludeconfusionbetweenselfwithother,switchingfromfirst
persontothirdperson,speakingasifeulogizing,longpausesof30secondsor
moreafterwhichthereisachangeofsubjectwithouttransition,andsoforth.
Forfurtherreferenceseeendnoteinthispaper.

P a g e |12

StanTatkin,Psy.D.(805)4996171

Copyright2007StanTatkin,Psy.D.allrightsreserved

Revision#7
especiallyimportantwithregardtothemostavoidantpartnerforwhomthe

therapistmustbridgetheorytothepatient'srealexperienceandsuffering.The

therapist'sinterpretationoftheinterviewmayappeartothepatientasmind

readingorfortunetellingbecausethetherapistwilldescribeexperiencesand

limitationsforwhichthepatienthas"felt"and"known"astruebuthasnever

beenabletoarticulate.Spontaneousconfirmationofthetherapists

interpretationmayalsocomefromhisorherpartner.

Theinterviewisexpectedtohaveaparticularimpactonthemostavoidant

partnerinthecouplesystem.Thetherapisthopes,bytheendofthesession,to

gainthatpartnerscuriosityandinterestinfurthersessions.

THEPRESENCEOFLOVINGNESSINEARLYATTACHMENT

Lovingexperiencedoesnotincludethebasicsoffeeding,shelter,clothing,

transportation,medicinesandmedicaltreatment.Italsodoesnotinclude

pressuretosucceedorperformacademically.Andofcourseitdoesnotinclude

absencenomatterwhatthereason.Duringtheinterviewofthetherapistis

listeningforreallovingexperiencesbyattachmentfiguresthatarememorable.

Forinstance,hugging,kissing,holding,lookingintotheeyeswithinterest,

makingfresh,lovingremarksthataremeantforjustthepatientallareloving

behaviorsthatareexperienceddyadicallyandinteractivelyandtherebyleadto

mutuallyamplifiedpositivefeelings.Ofcoursealltheaforementioned

behaviorscouldbenegativeaswell:Hugging,kissing,holding,andlookinginto

theeyescouldallbeexperiencedasinvasiveandevenabusive.Lovingremarks

couldalsobeexperiencedinavarietyofwaysmanyofwhichmaynotbefeltas
P a g e |13

StanTatkin,Psy.D.(805)4996171

Copyright2007StanTatkin,Psy.D.allrightsreserved

Revision#7
 "loving."Butforourpurposeshere,wearelookingforthesubjective

experienceoflovingnessasbackedbyspecificmemories.

CONCLUSION

Thegrosslyabbreviatedandrathercustomizedattachmentinterviewprovided
hereisforclinicaluseonlyandisnotmeantinanywaytoresemblethe
exquisiteinstrumentthatistheAdultAttachmentInterview.Iamcontinually
addingandrefiningthisinterviewaccordingtomyownfindingswhileworking
withcouples.Iencourageyoutoexperimentwiththisinterview.Ifyouhave
anyquestionsabouttheintervieworinterpretiveprocess,pleasewritethem
downandbringthemupduringourshorttimetogether.Questionsnot
answeredduringthelimitedtimeaffordedintheconferencecallcanbe
[email protected],however,the
limitationsoflengthyemailsandlengthyreplies.Comprehensivequestions
thatrequirecomprehensiveanswersmayrequireadifferentforum.

P a g e |14

StanTatkin,Psy.D.(805)4996171

Copyright2007StanTatkin,Psy.D.allrightsreserved

Revision#7
ENDNOTES

i
Grice'sConversationalMaxims

ThephilosopherPaulGriceproposedfourconversationalmaximsthatarise
fromthepragmaticsofnaturallanguage.Thesemaximsare:

MaximofQuantity:

1.Makeyourcontributiontotheconversationasinformativeasnecessary.
2.Donotmakeyourcontributiontotheconversationmoreinformativethan
necessary.

MaximofQuality:

1.Donotsaywhatyoubelievetobefalse.
2.Donotsaythatforwhichyoulackadequateevidence.

MaximofRelevance:

Berelevant(i.e.,saythingsrelatedtothecurrenttopicoftheconversation).

MaximofManner:

1.Avoidobscurityofexpression.
2.Avoidambiguity.
3.Bebrief(avoidunnecessarywordiness).
4.Beorderly.

P a g e |15

StanTatkin,Psy.D.(805)4996171

Copyright2007StanTatkin,Psy.D.allrightsreserved

Revision#7
References

Alexandrov, E. O., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2005). Couple attachment and the
quality of marital relationships: Method and concept in the validation of the new
couple attachment interview and coding system. Attachment & Human
Development, 7(2), 123-152.
Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love.
NeuroImage, 21(3), 1155-1166.
Cohn, D. A., Silver, D. H., Cowan, C. P., Cowan, P. A., & Pearson, J. (1992). Working
Models of Childhood Attachment and Couple Relationships. Journal of Family
Issues, 13(4), 432-449.
Collins, W. A., & Sroufe, L. A. (1999). Capacity for Intimate Relationships: A
Developmental Construction. In W. Furman, Brown, B. B., & Feiring, C. (Ed.),
The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 125-147). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Crowell, J. A., Treboux, D., & Waters, E. (1999). The adult attachment interview and the
relationship questionnaire: Relations to reports of mothers and partners.
Personal Relationships, 6(1).
Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., Mashek, D., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2002). Defining the Brain
Systems of Lust, Romantic Attraction, and Attachment. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 31(5), 413-419.
Fonagy, P., Leigh, T., Steele, M., Steele, H., Kennedy, R., Mattoon, G., et al. (1996).
The relation of attachment status, psychiatric classification, and response to
psychotherapy. J Consult Clin Psychol, 64(1), 22-31.
Frazier, P. A., Byer, A. L., Fischer, A. R., Wright, D. M., & Debord, K. A. (1996). Adult
attachment style and partner choice: Correlational and experimental findings.
Personal Relationships, 3(2).
George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1996). Adult Attachment Interview: Department of
Psychology, University of California.
Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Attachment-style differences in the experience and expression
of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 5(3).
Gullestad, S. E. (2003). The Adult Attachment Interview and psychoanalytic outcome
studies. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 84(3), 651-668.
Hesse, E., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1998). Parental loss of close family members and
propensities towards absorption in offspring. Developmental Science, 1(2).
Hollist, C. S., & Miller, R. B. (2005). Perceptions of Attachment Style and Marital Quality
in Midlife Marriage*. Family Relations, 54(1).
Hughes, P., & McGauley, G. (1997). Mother-Infant Interaction During the First Year with
a Child Who Shows Disorganization of Attachment. British Journal of
Psychotherapy, 14(2).
Main, M. (2000). The organized categories of infant, child, and adult attachment.
Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 48, 1055-1096.
Mayseless, O., & Scharf, M. (2007). Adolescents' Attachment Representations and
Their Capacity for Intimacy in Close Relationships. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 17(1).
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (2002). Attachment Security in
Couple Relationships: A Systemic Model and Its Implications for Family
Dynamics. Family Process, 41(3), 405-434.
Miller, D. (1995). Diagnostic assessment and therapeutic approaches to borderline
disorders in adolescents. Adolesc Psychiatry, 20, 237-252.
Paley, B., Cox, M. J., Burchinal, M. R., & Payne, C. C. (1999). Attachment and Marital
Functioning: Comparison of Spouses With Continuous-Secure, Earned-Secure,
Dismissing, and Preoccupied Attachment Stances,. Journal of Family
Psychology, 13(4), 580-597.
Roisman, G. I., Collins, A. W., Sroufe, A. L., & Egeland, B. (2005). Predictors of young
adults' representations of and behavior in their current romantic relationship:
Prospective tests of the prototype hypothesis. Attachment & Human
Development, 7(2), 105-121.
Roisman, G. I., Madsen, S. D., Hennighausen, K. H., Sroufe, L. A., & Collins, W. A.
(2001). The coherence of dyadic behavior across parent-child and romantic
relationships as mediated by the internalized representation of experience.
Attach Hum Dev, 3(2), 156-172.
Roisman, G. I., Padron, E., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2002). Earned-Secure
Attachment Status in Retrospect and Prospect (Vol. 73, pp. 1204-1219).
Shaver, P. R., Belsky, J. A. Y., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). The adult attachment interview
and self-reports of romantic attachment: Associations across domains and
methods. Personal Relationships, 7(1).
Shi, L. (2003). The Association Between Adult Attachment Styles and Conflict
Resolution in Romantic Relationships. American Journal of Family Therapy,
31(3), 143-157.
Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of Attachment Styles on Romantic Relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 971-980.
Sumer, N., & Cozzarelli, C. (2004). The impact of adult attachment on partner and
self-attributions and relationship quality. Personal Relationships, 11(3), 355-371.
Treboux, D., Crowell, J. A., & Waters, E. (2004). When newmeets old:
Configurations of adult attachment representations and their implications for
marital functioning. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 295-314.
Wampler, K. S., Shi, L. I. N., Nelson, B. S., & Kimball, T. G. (2003). The Adult
Attachment Interview and Observed Couple Interaction: Implications for an
Intergenerational Perspective on Couple Therapy (Vol. 42, pp. 497-515).
Wampler, K. S., Shi, L. I. N., Nelson, B. S., & Kimball, T. G. (2003). The Adult
Attachment Interview and Observed Couple Interaction: Implications for an
Intergenerational Perspective on Couple Therapy. Family Process, 42(4).
Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment
Security in Infancy and Early Adulthood: A Twenty-Year Longitudinal Study. Child
Development, 71(3).
 CouplesTherapy
ADDICTIONTO"ALONETIME"AVOIDANT
ATTACHMENT,NARCISSISM,ANDAONEPERSON
PSYCHOLOGYWITHINATWOPERSON
PSYCHOLOGICALSYSTEM

StanTatkin,Psy.D.
AssistantClinicalProfessor
DepartmentofFamilyMedicine
UniversityofCaliforniaatLosAngeles
DavidGeffenSchoolofMedicine
4505LasVirgenesRd,Suite217
Calabasas,CA913021956
8054996171
Email:[email protected]
Website:www.ahealthymind.org/csg

3/13/2007

Copyright2007StanTatkin,Psy.D.allrightsreserved

Writtenforthe2007 CouplesConference inAnaheim,California.

 ADDICTIONTO"ALONETIME"AVOIDANTATTACHMENT,
NARCISSISM,ANDAONEPERSONPSYCHOLOGYWITHINATWO
PERSONPSYCHOLOGICALSYSTEM

OVERVIEW
Comparisons have been made between severe avoidant attachment and disorders of the self such as
antisocialpersonality,schizoidpersonality,andnarcissisticpersonality.Eachofthesedisorders,including
avoidant attachment, can be grouped together as oneperson psychological organizations. Individuals
with these disorders operate outside of a truly interactive dyadic system and primarily rely upon
themselves for stimulation and calming via autoregulation. The chronic need for alone time can take
manysurprisingformsthroughoutthelifespanwhichdirectlyimpactromanticrelationships.

Cliniciansmaywellbeawareofconnectionsthathavebeenmadebetweenattachmenttheory
andpersonalitytheory.Forinstance,severalarticleshavemadethelinkbetweenextremeangry/resistant
internalworkingmodelsandborderlinepersonalityorganization(Agrawal,Gunderson,Holmes,&Lyons
Ruth, 2004; Barone, 2003; Bateman & Fonagy, 2003; Buchheim, Strauss, & Kachele, 2002; Downey,
Feldman, & Ayduk, ; Dutton, Saunders, Starzomski, & Bartholomew, ; Fonagy, Target, & Gergely, 2000;
Gold, 1996; Jeremy Holmes, 2003; J. Holmes, 2004; Nickell, Waudby, & Trull, 2002; Rosenstein &
Horowitz, 1996; Schmitt, Shackelford, Duntley, Tooke, & Buss, ; Stalker & Davies, 1995). Less has been
writtenaboutavoidantattachmentandnarcissisticpersonalitydisorderdespitethefactthatconnections
areeasytomake(Rosenstein&Horowitz,1996;Tatkin,2005,2006a,2006b,2006c,2007a,2007b;Tweed
&Dutton,1998).Developmentallyspeaking,theborderlineangry/resistantgroupisoftenthoughtofas
more relationshiporiented than the narcissistschizoidavoidant group. Object relations literature has
described the former group as tending to cling and the latter tending to distance (Diepold, 1995;
Gunderson, 1996; James F. Masterson, 1976, 1981, 1985; J. F. Masterson, 1995; James F. Masterson &
Costello,1980;Sigel&McGillicuddyDeLisi,;Silk,Lee,Hill,&Lohr,1995;vanderKolk,Hostetler,Herron,
& Fisler, 1994). In terms of regulation of nervous system arousal, the first group tends to rely upon
external regulation while the second group relies primarily on autoregulation. Viewed intersubjectively,
bothgroupstendtooperatewithinaonepersonpsychologicalparadigm.

Although there is much to say about the clinging group, this paper will focus on the group of
individuals that distance. This group is acutely sensitive to significant others who are physically or
emotionallyadvancingonthem.Theadvanceisautomaticallyviewedasintrusive.Thisstrongreactionto
approach triggers a host of seen and unseen distancing defenses, all of which are psychobiologically
reflexiveandnonconsciousbydesign.Inotherwords,thisexquisitereactiontobeingadvanceduponis
embedded in the nervous and musculoskeletal system and has its psychobiological roots in the earliest
attachmentrelationship.

Copyright2006 StanTatkin,Psy.D. allrightsreserved

2
(805)[email protected]

 ItisimportanttoestablishatthispointthatIamexcludingfromthedistancinggrouppervasive
developmentaldisorders,suchasautismandAspergers,aswellasothernaturerelateddisorderssuch
as schizophrenia and traumatic brain injury. Though there may be a diathesis (Burk & Burkhart, 2003;
Schore etal.,2006), or predisposing aspect to attachment andpersonality disorders, my intentionis to
focusonthenurtureaspecttoproblemsofchronicdistancing.

One of the common characteristics of the distancing group is a natural gravitation toward
"things"andareflexiveaversiontowardaprimaryattachmentfigure,suchasaspouse.Thegravitation
towardthingsasviewedinthedistancinggroupisanoutcomeofearlyparentalneglectanddismissal
ofattachmentvaluesandbehaviors.Theavoidantsneedtowithdrawfromprimaryattachmentobjectsis
euphemistically referred to as the need for "alone time." Alone time takes many different forms but
almostalwaysreflectsareturntoautoregulation.Themetaphoricuseofaddictionmaybeappropriateas
theavoidantlyattachedindividualsadherencetoautoregulationisegosyntonic.Theawarenessofthisas
a disability is kept away through an aggrandized belief in his or her own autonomy. In actual fact, real
autonomynever developeddueto theconsiderableneglect that almost alwayspervades the history of
this personality/attachment profile. He or she will not depend on a primary attachment figure for
stimulationandsoothing.TheircredoisnoonecangivemeanythingthatIcantgivemyself,andbetter
or Id rather do it myself. Individuals in the distancing group primarily reside in a oneperson
psychologicalsystemthatis,bydefinition,masturbatory.

AVOIDANTLYATTACHEDINDIVIDUALSANDDISSOCIATION
IWANTYOUINTHEHOUSEBUTNOTINMYROOMUNLESSIINVITEYOU

Thereisastrongconnectionbetweenavoidantlyattachedindividualsanddissociation.Whyisthisso?In
theabsenceofattachmentbehaviorsinitiatedandmaintainedbytheparentorparents,childrenwillrely
on an autoregulatory modality instead of an interactive one. In order to maintain autoregulation, the
internal overfocusing on selfstimulation and selfsoothing itself becomes a dissociative process. The
stateshiftnecessarytogointointeractivemoderequiresthebroadeningofsensoryprocessingandmotor
output. The autoregulatory state is more conserving of energy in this regard. It is also a state that
suspendstimeandspacewhichiswhyitissocomfortingtoneglectedandabusedchildren.

The Avoidant child is offspring to the dismissive/derogating parent who is unconcerned with
attachment behaviors and values (Slade, 2000; Sroufe, 1985). This gives rise to a deconditioning of
proximity seeking and contact maintaining behaviors within the child. The child turns away from
interactive regulation and toward autoregulation, a strategy for selfsoothing and selfstimulation.
MargaretMahler(1975)discoveredthatanormalchildinthepracticingsubphasecantoleratephysical
distance from Mother by maintaining a fantasy of her omnipresence. This provides the child with a
necessary,albeitfalsesenseofsecurityforextendedplaywithintheoutsideworld.TheadultAvoidantis
abletomaintainadissociativebutstableautoregulatorystrategythatdependsonafantasyofapartners
omnipresence.Thispseudosecuretacticcanmetaphoricallyenvisionedwiththephrase,"Iwantyouinthe

Copyright2006 StanTatkin,Psy.D. allrightsreserved

3
(805)[email protected]

house but not in my room unless I invite you." (Tatkin, 2007c) This sentiment expresses the Avoidants
needforcontinualbutimplicitproximitytotheprimaryattachmentfigureminustheproblemofexplicit
proximitywhichisexperiencedasintrusiveanddisruptivetotheautoregulatorystrategy.

FortheAvoidant,externaldisruptionsoftheautoregulatorystateareexperiencedtoagreater
orlessordegreeasashocktothenervoussystem.Firstthereisthesensoryintrusionaurally,visually,or
tacticallybyanapproachingpersonwhichmaybeexperiencedasstartling,followedbyasocialdemand
tostateshiftfromanautoregulatorytimeless(dissociative)modetoaninteractiverealtimemode.Oneis
more energyconserving and the other more energyexpending. For the distancing group, both are
experientiallynonreciprocal,meaningneitherstateinvolvesexpectedrewardsfromanotherperson.In
autoregulation, no other person is required or wanted. However, during the initial shift to interactive
realtimemode,however,theotherpersonisviewedasdemandwithnoexpectedrewardorreciprocity.

To make this clearer, picture a motherbaby relationship that is dismissiveavoidant (mother

baby, respectively). The avoidant baby has reoriented away from interactive play with the mother to
solitary play with toys. Mothers departures are less upsetting and her returns are less exciting. Her
approach,however,isalsolessappreciatedduetoachroniclackofattuned,reciprocalplay.Themothers
approachmaybemetwithangerbecauseitisnotexperiencedsomuchasareunionasitisanunwanted
invasionofhistimeandspace.Ifthebabycouldtalkhemightsay,Imbusyhere,whatdoyouwant?In
contrast, expectations and capacities to shift states differ in motherbaby relationships that are
preoccupiedambivalent (respectively) and autonomoussecure (respectively). The ambivalent baby is
fussierwhenmotherisaround,moreupsetwhensheleaves,andhardertocalmwhenshereturns.This
baby expects more interaction, more proximity, and more contact maintanence with mother and has
more difficulty shifting out of interactiverealtime mode and into autoregulation. Autoregulation is also
moredifficulttomaintainovertime.Mothersapproachmaybemetwithangerbecauseitisexperienced
as a reunion with both a sustained memory and expectation of being left. The secure baby effortlessly
shifts between solitary and interactive play with mother when she is present, becomes mildly to
moderately upset when she leaves, and is quickly calmed if upset when she returns. If the baby is not
upset,he is excited and happy when she appears and seeks proximity,physical contact and interaction
withher.

Whilestateshiftingcomeseasytoasecurelyattachedchild,itissignificantlymoredifficultfor
childrenoneithersideoftheattachmentspectrum.Fortheambivalentchild(akaangry/resistant),the
shift out of interactiverealtime mode is more difficult and may take more time to achieve. For the
avoidantchild,theshiftoutofautoregulatorytimelessmodeismoredifficultandtakeslongertoachieve.

C HILDHOOD E XAMPLE :
Alittlegirlisplayinginherroomwithtoys.Sheisinatimelessandspacelessstateofmind.Thisisavery
enjoyableplaystatebutonethatisautoregulatoryandonepersonoriented.Sheisselfstimulatingviaher
imaginationandinteractionwithherinternalandexternalobjects.Suddenlymothercallshertodinner.
Thecallisashocktohersystemasitisexperiencedasinterferencetoherdissociativeprocess.Itrequires

Copyright2006 StanTatkin,Psy.D. allrightsreserved

4
(805)[email protected]

astateshiftwherebyshemustmoveoutofalowdemandautoregulatorymodeandintoahighdemand
interactivemodewithothers.

The child, once engaged interactively, may adjust and even enjoy the interactive process.
Howeverbecauseautoregulationisthedefaultposition,shewillsoonmoveoutofinteractionandback
into a dissociative autoregulatory mode once interaction is withdrawn. The shift back into interaction
becomesaproblemonceagain.

A DULT E XAMPLE :
HenryandClareareonadriveforlongvacation.Henry,whoisdrivingthecar,staressilentlyaheadwhile
Clare becomes increasingly discomforted by the lack of interaction. Her bids for interaction fail. She
begins to wonder why Henry isn't engaged with her. She is hard pressed to understand how he can
managetobesoquietforsuchalongdrivewhileshestruggleswiththesilence.Henry,ontheotherhand,
is without discomfort because he is operating within a oneperson psychological system wherein he
autoregulates(dissociates).Inotherwords,heisplayingaloneinhisroomwithhistoysandthingsandhe
isblissfullyunawarethatheiswithanotherperson.Claireontheotherhandispainfullyawaresheiswith
anotherpersonandassuchisfeelingquitealoneandquitepossiblypersecutedbythedisengagementof
herpartner.1

A NOTHER A DULT E XAMPLE :

Cindyand Bobby areupstairs getting ready for bed. Knowing that Cindy is interested in business ideas,
Bobby reads her something he read in a magazine. A lightbulb goes off in her head. Without saying a
word,CindygoesdownstairswhileBobbyisstillreadingtoher.Shegrabsapenandpapertowritethe
ideadown.ShecomesbackupstairstofindBobbywhoisnowangry.Sheissurprisedbyhisreactionand
unawareofhavingdoneanythingwrong.Bobbycomplains:shewasrudeforwalkingoutofhimwhilehe
was telling her something. Hes angry because she seems to do this a lot in other instances. He feels
dismissedandunimportant.Cindy,operatingwithinaonepersonpsychologicalsystem,"forgot"thatshe
waswithanotherperson.Neveroccurringtohertoshareherthoughtsabouttheideawithherpartner,
she instead ran downstairs to protect the idea herself. Had she been oriented to a twoperson
psychologicalsystem,shewouldhaveusedBobbyasherpenandpaperbysharingherthoughtswithhim
therebyrecordingthemwithinhisbrain.

1
It is important at this point to make a distinction between what is commonly thought of as
disengagementandtowhatIamreferringhere.Ordinarilywithintheintersubjectivefieldofatwoperson
psychological system, there exists a mutual, psychobiological expectation of momenttomoment
interaction.Thisinteractionisprimarilynonverbalthoughwhennonverbalcuesaremissing,participants
maymistakenlyidentifytheproblemasalackofverbalinteraction.Thisisespeciallysoformoreverbally
orientedindividuals.Researchonthestillfacedemonstratesacriticaltimeperiodofnonresponsiveness
byonememberofthedyadandthenegativeeffectsofthenonresponsivenessontheotherparticipant.
Therhythmicbeatsoftheexquisiteinteractionaredropped,sotospeak,whichcreatesadisturbancein
thefieldsuchasabreachintheattachmentsystem.Typicallythisbreachiscorrectedandrepairedquickly
enoughandoftenenoughastomaintainastablesenseofattunedreciprocity.

Copyright2006 StanTatkin,Psy.D. allrightsreserved

5
(805)[email protected]

 Cindyisaloneallthetimewhetherornotphysicallypresentwithsomeone.Thisdefaultposition
isegosyntonicwithoutawarenessofitsdownside.Sheisnotorientedtowardtoutilizingherpartnerasa
brainintowhichherownbraincanexpand.

When Cindy realized what she had done she was shocked by her own behavior. She didn't
understand why she would do such a thing even though it was quite natural to her. Though physically
withBobbywhilegettingreadyforbed,shewasinadissociativestate,autoregulatingandunawarethat
shewaswithanotherpersonatthatmoment.Bobbyontheotherhandwascompletelyawarethathe
waswithCindyandsoforhim,herwalkingawaycausedamomentarybreachintheattachmentsystem.
Theseverityofthebreachwasmoderatedbyhersurpriseatherownbehavior.2

Attachment and personality organization involves biological substrates that alter

neurophysiologic organization both on a structural and functional level. The predilection for
autoregulationisnotmerelyapreference,althoughitcanbe.Primarilyitishardwiredintothenervous
system.

SUMMARY
For the avoidantly attached individual the ball naturally rolls in the direction of autoregulation. This
default position of autoregulation is mystifying to the more interactive partner. He or she cannot
understand how the avoidant counterpart can forget him or her so quickly or suddenly seem so
disconnected;engagedoneminuteanddisengagedthenext.Thepartnermayfeelasiftheyhavebeen
forgottenandintruththeyhave.Theindividualwhohasanavoidanthistoryisinsomewaysbetteroff
than the more secure partner. The avoidant partner maintains a pseudosecure relationship that is
internally based on a fantasy of his or her partner's omnipresence. The dissociative aspect of
autoregulationscreensoutminorintrusions,suchasbidsforconnectionandinteraction.Inthissensethe
avoidant can maintain a blissful unawareness of breaches in the attachment system. However, when
partners approach them physically they inadvertently trigger a threat response within the avoidant
partnerthatresultsinattemptstowithdraworattack.Onceagain,theavoidanthasaverydifficulttime
shiftingstatesparticularlyfromautoregulationtointeraction.

2
Ishouldmentionherethattheautoregulatorymodeisverysimilartoattentiondeficitdisorder.
Againthatthereisaproblemwiththeactivationoftheprefrontalcortexwhichisnecessarynotonlyfor
regulation of sub cortical processes but also in producing and maintaining a witness state of self
awareness.Withoutanobservingselfwhichisattributedtotheventralmedialprefrontalcortex,thereis
a lack of awareness of time and space. The individual is literally unattended to and neglected but in a
blissfuldissociativestate.

Copyright2006 StanTatkin,Psy.D. allrightsreserved

6
(805)[email protected]

REFERENCES

Agrawal,H.R.,Gunderson,J.,Holmes,B.M.,&LyonsRuth,K.(2004).Attachmentstudieswithborderline
patients:areview.HarvRevPsychiatry,12(2),94104.
Barone, L. (2003). Developmental protective and risk factors in borderline personality disorder: a study
usingtheAdultAttachmentInterview.AttachHumDev,5(1),6477.
Bateman,A.W.,&Fonagy,P.(2003).Thedevelopmentofanattachmentbasedtreatmentprogramfor
borderlinepersonalitydisorder.BullMenningerClin,67(3),187211.
Buchheim,A.,Strauss,B.,&Kachele,H.(2002).[Thedifferentialrelevanceofattachmentclassificationfor
psychologicaldisorders].PsychotherPsychosomMedPsychol,52(34),128133.
Burk, L. R., & Burkhart, B. R. (2003). Disorganized attachment as a diathesis for sexual deviance:
Developmental experience and the motivation for sexual offending. Aggression and Violent
Behavior,8(5),487511.
Diepold, B. (1995). [Borderline developmental disorders in childrenon theory and treatment]. Prax
KinderpsycholKinderpsychiatr,44(7),270279.
Downey, G., Feldman, S., & Ayduk, O. Rejection sensitivity and male violence in romantic relationships.
PersonalRelationships,7(1).
Dutton,D.G.,Saunders,K.,Starzomski,A.,&Bartholomew,K.IntimacyAngerandInsecureAttachmentas
PrecursorsofAbuseinIntimateRelationships1.JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology,24(15).
Fonagy, P., Target, M., & Gergely, G. (2000). Attachment and borderline personality disorder. A theory
andsomeevidence.PsychiatrClinNorthAm,23(1),103122,viiviii.
Gold,J.H.(1996).Theintoleranceofaloneness.AmJPsychiatry,153(6),749750.
Gunderson, J. G. (1996). The borderline patient's intolerance of aloneness: insecure attachments and
therapistavailability.AmJPsychiatry,153(6),752758.
Holmes,J.(2003).Borderlinepersonalitydisorderandthesearchformeaning:anattachmentperspective.
AustNZJPsychiatry,37(5),524531.
Holmes, J. (2004). Disorganized attachment and borderline personality disorder: a clinical perspective.
AttachHumDev,6(2),181190.
Mahler,M.S.,Bergman,A.,&Pine,F.(1975).Thepsychologicalbirthofthehumaninfant:symbiosisand
individuation.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Masterson, J. F. (1976). Psychotherapy of the borderline adult: a developmental approach. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Masterson,J.F.(1981).Thenarcissisticandborderlinedisorders:anintegrateddevelopmentalapproach.
Larchmont,N.Y.:Brunner/Mazel.
Masterson, J. F. (1985). Treatment of the borderline adolescent: a developmental approach. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Masterson,J.F.(1995).Paradiselostbulimia,aclosetnarcissisticpersonalitydisorder:adevelopmental,
self,andobjectrelationsapproach.AdolescPsychiatry,20,253266.
Masterson,J.F.,&Costello,J.L.(1980).Fromborderlineadolescenttofunctioningadult:thetestoftime:
afollowupreportofpsychoanalyticpsychotherapyoftheborderlineadolescentandfamily.New
York:Brunner/Mazel.

Copyright2006 StanTatkin,Psy.D. allrightsreserved

7
(805)[email protected]

Nickell,A.D.,Waudby,C.J.,&Trull,T.J.(2002).Attachment,parentalbondingandborderlinepersonality
disorderfeaturesinyoungadults.JPersonalDisord,16(2),148159.
Rosenstein, D. S., & Horowitz, H. A. (1996). Adolescent attachment and psychopathology. J Consult Clin
Psychol,64(2),244253.
Schmitt,D.P.,Shackelford,T.K.,Duntley,J.,Tooke,W.,&Buss,D.M.Thedesireforsexualvarietyasa
keytounderstandingbasichumanmatingstrategies.PersonalRelationships,8(4).
Schore, A. N., Schore, J., Tatkin, S., Thomson, P., Newton, R., & Stevens, V. (2006). Readers Guide to
IntersubjectiveNeurobiology.NewYork:W.W.Nortoninpress.
Sigel,I.,&McGillicuddyDeLisi,A.V.RodCocking'slegacy:Thedevelopmentofpsychologicaldistancing.
JournalofAppliedDevelopmentalPsychology,InPress,UncorrectedProof.
Silk,K.R.,Lee,S.,Hill,E.M.,&Lohr,N.E.(1995).Borderlinepersonalitydisordersymptomsandseverity
ofsexualabuse.AmJPsychiatry,152(7),10591064.
Slade, A. (2000). The development and organization of attachment: Implications for psychoanalysis.
JournaloftheAmericanPsychoanalyticAssociation,48(4),11471174.
Sroufe,L.A.(1985).Attachmentclassificationfromtheperspectiveofinfantcaregiverrelationshipsand
infanttemperament.ChildDev,56(1),114.
Stalker, C. A., & Davies, F. (1995). Attachment organization and adaptation in sexuallyabused women.
CanJPsychiatry,40(5),234240.
Tatkin, S. (2005). Prevailence of Dissociation in Avoidant Couples (Vol. 22nd). Toronto, Canada:
InternationalSocietyfortheStudyofDissociation.
Tatkin,S.(2006a).Theprevalenceofdissociationinlowarousalavoidantcouples(Vol.23rd).LosAngeles,
California:InternationalSocietyfortheStudyofDissociation.
Tatkin,S.(2006b).Sex,Drugs,RocknRoll,andRage:WorkingWithHighArousalCouples(Vol.42nd,pp.
Threehours).PalmSprings,California:CaliforniaAssociationofMarriageandFamilyTherapists.
Tatkin,S.(2006c).ASynopsisofMyApproachtoCouplesTherapy.TheTherapist(January/February),7.
Tatkin,S.(2007a).AvoidantCouplesandAllostaticLoad:thehighcostoflowphysicalcontact(Vol.61st).
SanFrancisco,California:CaliforniaPsychologicalAssociation.
Tatkin, S. (2007b). DevelopmentalPsychobiological Approach to Difficult Couples. Anaheim, California:
MiltonH.EricksonFoundation.
Tatkin, S. (2007c). The PseudoSecure Couple (aka falseself couple). Anaheim, California: Milton H.
EricksonFoundation.
Tweed,R.G.,&Dutton,D.G.(1998).Acomparisonofimpulsiveandinstrumentalsubgroupsofbatterers.
ViolenceVict,13(3),217230.
van der Kolk, B. A., Hostetler, A., Herron, N., & Fisler, R. E. (1994). Trauma and the development of
borderlinepersonalitydisorder.PsychiatrClinNorthAm,17(4),715730.

Copyright2006 StanTatkin,Psy.D. allrightsreserved

8
(805)[email protected]

 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 1

Running head: Pseudosecure Couples

PSEUDOSECURE COUPLES

Stan Tatkin, Psy.D.

Assistant Clinical Professor

Department of Family Medicine

University of California at Los Angeles

David Geffen School of Medicine

Published:

Tatkin, S. (2007). Pseudo-Secure Couples. The Therapist, 19(1).

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 2

Abstract

Numerous couples end up in therapy after many years of stable marriage. The catalyst that brings

them is a crisis spawned by the revelation of a devastating secret or series of secrets. Like secure

or earned secure pairings, these couples appear successful at interactive regulation. In striking

contrast to secure couples however, these partners will present in therapy as having little real

knowledge of one another, even after decades of marriage. At least one partner refuses to trust

the other with his or her mind and maintains pockets of secrecy about the self that directly or

indirectly impacts the safety and security system of the partnership.

Pseudosecurity is discussed here in terms of insecure pairings that find long-term

psychobiological homeostasis through avoidance in ways that appear engaged and secure to the

partners themselves. As a result, neither partner would admit to a pattern of avoidance either in

themselves or the other. These are pseudosecure couples.

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 3

Pseudosecure Couples

Pseudosecure Couples As Different From Other Couples

Pseudosecure couples are often made up of insecure individuals, but not always. Partners

can range anywhere from secure or earned-secure to the other end of the insecure spectrum (see

figure 1). However, unresolved-disorganized individuals and those at the more extreme polar

ends of the insecure spectrum are excluded from the pseudosecure coupling I describe here. This

is because the pseudosecure couple is able to maintain many years of stable marriage without the

massive dysregulation that disrupts couplings in severely insecure relationships. Unresolved-

disorganized partners are unable to maintain a regulated false partnership due to the inherent

dysregulation that comes with unresolved loss and trauma. Similarly, extreme polar ends of the

insecure spectrum, though organized, involve massive dysregulation due to continual assaults on

the partner's sense of safety and security. Whenever these partners move toward a committed

relationship, they become psychobiologically dependent upon one another and this dependency

activates intense reactions to proximity-seeking and contact-maintanence. Adaptations, or

defenses against a threatened safety-security system, are continually being overwhelmed by an

ever increasing perception of relationship permanence. Thus, these partners are unable to

maintain a regulated false relationship and tend to have major problems early on.

There are exceptions to this, however, whereby stressors such as aging, death of a family

member, physical illness, and other emotional-psychosocial stressors may lead to a developing

pattern of dysregulation and a breakdown of the pseudosecure defense.

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 4

PSEUDOSECURE COUPLES:

Show a preference for familiarity and intolerance of "strangerness."

Do not welcome the complexities of strangerness in their partner and therefore are

not able to maintain creative curiosity about the other and the self in the other.

Tend to avoid novelty.

At least one partner does not trust the other with his/her mind.

Abide by a rigid set of internal self and object representations.

Overly rely on triangulation and parallel play and avoid the use of joint attention.

Have difficulty with either or both axes of time and proximity.

Tend to avoid frequent and prolonged eye contact for interactive regulation.

Knowing and Being Known

One of the hallmarks of a pseudosecure individual is a refusal to trust their partner with

his/her mind. This may be described as segments of experience, both past and present, which

cannot be shared with the primary attachment figure. The narratives of these individuals contain

various reasons for the secrecy:

I need to have some modicum of privacy.

I dont want him/her interferring with my business.

If he/she were to know, the marriage would be over.

I need something of my own, something thats mine alone.

Arguably, secure partners might expect to expand into one anothers minds, especially

during periods of creativity or stress, simply because two brains are better than one. Still another

purpose of a two-person psychological system is the intersubjective experience of knowing and

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 5

being known. Partners become willing containers for one another and provide a psychological

space for each to organize and digest experience, particularly of the implicit kind. Unprocessed,

implicit experience is by definition non-declarative and may therefore be unavailable for words.

A partner may feel or think that which cannot be articulated, but would benefit from an

intersubjective space within which to organize feeling or thought. They need another available

and interested mind to help them hold the experience. Both partners would have to tolerate not

knowing and not understanding long enough to create space for this sort of discovery. Secure

partners may be more inclined to use one another in this fashion. This feature is entirely

missing in pseudosecure partnerships.

In order for insecurely attached individuals to produce and maintain positive, secure-like

states of partnership, mates must construct and maintain fantasies of safety and security based on

ideal roles of self and other.

These roles are ideal in that they produce sufficient positive feeling about coupling and

help move partners toward more advanced stages of relationship. In these roles partners avoid

painful ambivalence and inconsistencies based on their individual internal working models

(Bowlby, 1969). This is similar to Winnicott's notion of false self (Winnicott, 1960) wherein one

bases ones sense of self on a continuously engaged defensive system that is both novelty-and

pain-avoiding (Stadler et al., 2006; Waters & Deane, 1985). In the pseudosecure couple, the co-

constructed and mutually maintained false self must abide by a rigid set of rules that determine

approach/avoidance behavior on an ongoing basis. In other words, both partners are able to

maintain the integrity of their internal working models by settling in to an "idea" of one another

that must remain static and thereby avoid discovery and surprise. This makes both the inner and

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 6

outer world "appear" more predictable and less threatening, yet it does so at the cost of vitality,

freshness, wonderment, spontaneity, and complexity (Eagle, 2005).

Insecure individuals gravitate toward pseudosecurity by assuming they "know" their

partners and themselves. The curiosity of the courtship phase is replaced by a more stable but

fixed view of the other, as well as the self in the eyes of the other (Decety & Chaminade, 2003;

Trevarthen & Aitken, 2001). To the minimal extent self and other are modified, it is to avoid

dysregulation. This is a profound form of turning away. Partners cease or fail to notice the

complexity of the other. In this system, novelty threatens their false sense of security and so is

avoided.

Youre Not The Person I Married. There is an irony to this statement, both funny yet

tragic, as the complaint reveals several misconceptions. The phrase assumes that partners can

and should know one another late in the relationship as they knew one another early in the

relationship; that partners do not change over time; that partners do not develop complexity both

as individuals and as a couples system; and that partners are fully knowable.

Of course, "knowing" in the early stages of a relationship is purely transferential.

Romantic relationships are powered by positive transference, projection and projective

identification, often including blissful fantasies of onemindedness and fusion (Aron et al., 2005;

Koenig, 2005; Maner et al., 2005). Infatuated couples are, to a large degree, self-stimulating. As

recent studies demonstrate, the brains of new lovers are awash in dopamine and norepinephrine

as positive affects are amplified and sustained. In addition to increased levels of dopamine and

norepinephrine, infatuated brains show decreased levels of serotonin, which accounts for the

obsessiveness and worry that keeps new partners in mind while physically apart. This anxiety

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 7

("when is he going to call?") though painful, promotes longing, and provides the drive to reunite

(Aron et al., 2005; H. E. Fisher, 2004; Helen E. Fisher, Aron, Mashek, Li, & Brown, 2002;

Starbuck et al., 2001).

Pseudosecurity vs Novelty

Insecurely attached individuals tend to seek out partners who immediately feel familiar to

them. This familiarity may also be termed, familial-arity, as the new person is experienced as

"fitting in" with one's own clan culture. Strangers may become too familiar too quick with the

sense of having "known" the other for a long time. Secure- autonomous individuals tend to be

accepting and comfortable with strangerness2 and tend to see it as novel and interesting. On the

other hand, a pseudosecure individual will have a chronic need for early and somewhat final

knowing.

It is important to clarify the term novelty, especially when attempting to evaluate its

presence or absence in a long-term committed relationship. As mentioned earlier, courting

partners are essentially engaged in mutual stimulation and relaxation via projective mechanisms,

and so there is, by definition, little if any exposure to real novelty. As such, a certain degree of

narcissism is involved and therefore partners are engaged in an autoregulatory system of

stimulation and relaxation rather than true interactive regulation (Solomon, 1985, 1989). To put

it another way, though courting partners are mutually engaged in amplifying positive affects, this

mutuality is not the same as the more mature interactive regulation that is expected to occur later

down the line as the relationship moves toward increasing mutual dependency. As a secure

relationship progresses, partners depend upon one another for stimulation and relaxation. The

relationship at the early stages resembles a one-person psychological system to a larger degree

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 8

than a two-person psychological system. We would expect a shift toward real interactive

regulation as the relationship progresses and matures. This shift is predicated in part by each

partners acceptance of and comfort with strangerness rather than an ongoing captivation with

familial-arity. This means that both partners are aware of each other as separate, autonomous and

somewhat unpredictable individuals an awareness that leads to an appreciation of complexity

in the relationship.

Mutual awareness and appreciation of strangerness within the context of a secure

relationship go hand-in-hand with interactive regulation and leads to individual and mutual

development. Familial-arity, on the other hand, involves an unyielding and continual reliance on

negative or positive transferential material from early attachment relationships. This material

gets projected onto each partner and onto the relationship itself. This becomes the false

"knowing" that interferes with discovery and novelty and leads to pseudosecurity (Eagle, 2005).

Pseudosecurity leads to boredom and dissatisfaction with the partnership. In contrast,

secure couples continually re-invent themselves out of an ongoing awareness and appreciation of

mystery and change. These partners do not become chronically bored with one another. They

continually update their knowledge base of one another and expand their identities through

frequent interactive regulation.

Love vs Lust: falling in love is a close-up endeavor, lust is always at a distance

Mate selection, though based in a variety of social and economic factors, is

fundamentally influenced by early attachment strategies. In addition to mate selection, early

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 9

attachment formation deeply affects other important aspects of close, dyadic interpersonal

relationships. One such factor is management of intimacy and distance, which can be measured

in terms of time and proximity (see figure 2). Time is the frequency and duration that one spends

in contact with a primary attachment figure. Proximity is the actual physical distance that is

allowed between partners. The axes of time and proximity is a good indicator of comfort with

intimacy and distance within a dyad, yet more detail is required to understand what these two

dimensions actually look like in close relationships.

Sustained contact in close proximity is an important concern referring back to the early

attachment relationship. Physical proximity, in particular face-to-face, eye-to-eye contact has a

dramatic effect on individuals. Consider the mother-infant relationship where holding the baby in

the cradled position brings the mothers and babys face within six to twelve inches of one

another. The human brain is wired to respond very differently at this distance. The human brain

has more visual neurons and pathways than any other sensory input. The human face has finer

musculature than any other part of the body. The human eye, particularly the left eye, shows

more expression and reveals more information about the autonomic nervous system than any

other expressive organ. The music-like interplay at close distance is akin to playing the scales of

arousal from high to low and back again. Being in the eyes of another can be exciting,

mesmerizing, and compelling. This is why television news programs such as 60 Minutes favor

extreme close-ups of individuals. Even those who might be considered uninteresting at a distance

become very interesting close-up. In childhood as in adulthood, attentiveness to the face and eyes

provides rapid social-emotional queuing, an intersubjective process that leads to interactive

regulation of affect and arousal.

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 10

Interactive regulation most often involves face-to-face, skin-to-skin interaction whereby

the partners are available to one another via one or more sensory co-regulators, primarily the

eyes. It is no coincidence that secure couples make more frequent and sustained eye contact than

do insecure couples. Insecure couples make less continuous eye and skin-to-skin contact and

tend to rely more on auditory cues and visual cues, but at a distance far greater than twelve

inches.

The distance in the visual field involved in attraction or attractiveness is an important

component in drawing persons toward one another. If all goes well the early attraction phase,

proximity-seeking moves into contact-maintenance, whereby partners spend extended periods in

close face-to-face proximity, and perhaps even later, skin-to-skin.

In close face-to-face contact, both people experience intense amplified positive feeling.

In the neurochemical sense, partners are experiencing dopaminergic surges and high levels of

noradrenaline. This is the same kind of vitality seen in mother-infant play with the very same

neurochemical activity. Much of the excitement has little to do with language but rather the

nonverbal interplay involving the right hemisphere, deep limbic structures and higher cortical,

predominantly right brain processes. Near senses such as vision, smell, sound, and touch play an

important role in the interactive regulatory process. These are the very same senses that will later

pose the greatest problems to pseudosecure couples as they become more psychobiologically

dependent on one another (Tatkin, 2005).2

Interactive regulation is two brains engaged in psychobiological attunement (see figure

3). This is a process of error and error correcting as two psychobiological systems continually

adjust to momentary loss and restoration of attuned interaction. Neuroscience visionaries such as

Allan Schore, view this kind of interaction as right brain to right brain (Schore, 1997, 2001,
Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved
12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 11

2002, 2005). The intersubjective process activates several key limbic and non-limbic structures

involved in high-resolution socioaffective operations. Activation of these structures tend to

occur more in the right hemisphere (Adolphs, Damasio, Tranel, Cooper, & Damasio, 2000;

Bourne & Todd, 2004; Gainotti, 2001; Henry, 1997; Kimura, Yoshino, Takahashi, & Nomura,

2004; Manas K. Mandal & Ambady, 2004; Pelphrey, Singerman, Allison, & McCarthy, 2003;

Tucker, Hartry-Speiser, McDougal, Luu, & deGrandpre, 1999; Watanabe, Miki, & Kakigi,

2002). More importantly, however, skillful interactive regulation involves rapid, thoughtless,

accurate reading and responding to emotional cues. This capacity involves an integration of

vertical, hierarchical ascending and descending neural pathways that span subcortical and higher

cortical regions. This vertical hierarchy is again right-lateralized during positively and negatively

charged interactions (Adolphs, 2001, 2002; Adolphs, Damasio, Tranel, Cooper, & Damasio,

2000; Adolphs, Damasio, Tranel, & Damasio, 1996; Bechara, Damasio, & Damasio, 2000; M. K.

Mandal, 2004; Mitchell, Elliott, Barry, Cruttenden, & Woodruff, 2003).

What Guards Against Pseudosecurity?

Two-person psychological orientation.

A preference for interactive regulation.

Resolved trauma and loss.

Attraction to complexity.

Good neuro-development for social-emotional functioning.

Sobriety.

Secure-Autonomous or Earned-Secure attachment.

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 12

Helping Pseudosecure Couples

Pseudosecure couples generally come in to therapy because of a crisis involving a secret

or set of secrets kept by at least one partner. The secret is usually financial or sexual in nature.

The crisis sets up a pattern of dysregulation that is effectively treated in frequent and lengthy

sessions. The long and frequent sessions help reduce the psychobiological stress that arises from

the inability of pseudosecure partners to repair the injury.

Frequent and lengthy sessions also allow the therapist to work through the many state

changes experienced by partners throughout the session. State changes cannot be managed in

one-hour sessions. The therapist can use the longer sessions to work in depth with the avoidant

partners destabilization. This can accelerate the therapeutic process in ways that might never

occur in individual therapy. Whether or not they decide to stay together, the crisis that brings the

pseudosecure couple into therapy can provide enormous benefits to each partner. The therapist

working with pseudosecure couples should make very clear that their investment in therapy at

this time, though very painful, will move both partners forward in their development in a way

never before experienced. And for those couples that choose to stay together it is also, quite

truthfully, an opportunity to at last become married.

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 13

References

Adolphs, R. (2001). The Neurobiology of Social Cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology,

11, 231-239.

Adolphs, R. (2002). Neural Systems for Recognizing Emotion. Curr Opin Neurobiol, 12(2), 169-

177.

Adolphs, R., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., Cooper, G., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). A Role for

Somatosensory Cortices in the Visual Recognition of Emotion as Revealed by Three-

Dimensional Lesion Mapping. J. Neurosci., 20(7), 2683-2690.

Adolphs, R., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1996). Cortical Systems for the

Recognition of Emotion in Facial Expressions. J. Neurosci., 16(23), 7678-7687.

Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2005). Reward,

Motivation, and Emotion Systems Associated with Early-Stage Intense Romantic Love.

Journal of Neurophysiology, 94(1), 327-337.

Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). Emotion, Decision Making and the

Orbitofrontal Cortex. Cereb. Cortex, 10(3), 295-307.

Bourne, V. J., & Todd, B. K. (2004). When Left Means Right: An Explanation of the Left

Cradling Bias in Terms of Right Hemisphere Specializations: Developmental Science.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss. New York,: Basic Books.

Decety, J., & Chaminade, T. (2003). When the Self Represents the Other: A New Cognitive

Neuroscience View on Psychological Identification. Consciousness and Cognition, In

Press, Corrected Proof.

Eagle, M. (2005). Attachment and Sexuality: The Paradoxes of Familiarity and Novelty. Paper

presented at the The New York Attachment Consortium, Garden City, New York.

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 14

Fisher, H. E. (2004). Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love: Henry Holt &

Company.

Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., Mashek, D., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2002). Defining the Brain Systems

of Lust, Romantic Attraction, and Attachment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31(5), 413-

419.

Gainotti, G. (2001). Disorders of Emotional Behavior. Journal of Neurology, 248(9), 743-749.

Henry, J. P. (1997). Psychological and Physiological Responses to Stress: The Right Hemisphere

and the Hypothalamo-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis, an Inquiry into Problems of Human

Bonding. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl, 640, 10-25.

Kimura, Y., Yoshino, A., Takahashi, Y., & Nomura, S. (2004). Interhemispheric Difference in

Emotional Response without Awareness. Physiology & Behavior, In Press, Corrected

Proof.

Koenig, B. L. (2005). Misperception of Romantic and Sexual Interests. The College of William

and Mary.

Laplanche, J. (1999). Essays on Otherness: New York, Routledge.

Mandal, M. K. (2004). Laterality of Facial Expressions of Emotion: Universal and Culture-

Specific Influences. Behavioural Neurology, 15(1), 23-34.

Mandal, M. K., & Ambady, N. (2004). Laterality of Facial Expressions of Emotion: Universal

and Culture-Specific Influences. Behavioural Neurology, 15(1-2), 23-34.

Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Robertson, T. E., Hofer, B., Neuberg, S. L., et al.

(2005). Functional Projection: How Fundamental Social Motives Can Bias Interpersonal

Perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 63-78.

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 15

Mitchell, R., Elliott, R., Barry, M., Cruttenden, A., & Woodruff, P. (2003). The Neural Response

to Emotional Prosody, as Revealed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Neuropsychologia, 41(10), 14101421.

Pelphrey, K. A., Singerman, J. D., Allison, T., & McCarthy, G. (2003). Brain Activation Evoked

by Perception of Gaze Shifts: The Influence of Context. Neuropsychologia, 41(2), 156-

170.

Schore, A. N. (1997). Early Organization of the Nonlinear Right Brain and Development of a

Predisposition to Psychiatric Disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 595-631.

Schore, A. N. (2001). Effects of a Secure Attachment Relationship on Right Brain Development,

Affect Regulation, and Infant Mental Health. Infant Ment Health J, 22, 7 - 66.

Schore, A. N. (2002). Dysregulation of the Right Brain: A Fundamental Mechanism of

Traumatic Attachment and the Psychopathogenesis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Aust

N Z J Psychiatry, 36(1), 9-30.

Schore, A. N. (2005). Attachment Trauma and the Developing Right Brain: Origins of

Pathological Dissociation -- Chapter 9. In A. N. Schore (Ed.), Attachment Trauma and

the Developing Right Brain (pp. 36). New York: WW Norton.

Solomon, M. F. (1985). Treatment of Narcissistic and Borderline Disorders in Marital Therapy:

Suggestions toward an Enhanced Therapeutic Approach. Clinical Social Work Journal,

13(2), 141-156.

Solomon, M. F. (1989). Narcissism and Intimacy : Love and Marriage in an Age of Confusion

(1st ed.). New York: Norton.

Stadler, C., Sterzer, P., Schmeck, K., Krebs, A., Kleinschmidt, A., & Poustka, F. (2006).

Reduced Anterior Cingulate Activation in Aggressive Children and Adolescents During

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 16

Affective Stimulation: Association with Temperament Traits. Journal of Psychiatric

Research, In Press, Corrected Proof.

Starbuck, S., Roberts, S., Jenkins, P., Broomfield, B., Corrance, M., Fairchild, D., et al. (2001).

In the Heat of the Moment

Biochemisty of Feelings [videorecording]. Princeton, NJ: Films for the Humanities & Sciences.

Tatkin, S. (2005, January/February). Marital Therapy and the Psychobiology of Turning toward

and Turning Away - Part 2. The Therapist, 16, 64-86.

Trevarthen, C., & Aitken, K. J. (2001). Infant Intersubjectivity: Research, Theory, and Clinical

Applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 42(1),

3-48.

Tucker, D. M., Hartry-Speiser, A., McDougal, L., Luu, P., & deGrandpre, D. (1999). Mood and

Spatial Memory: Emotion and Right Hemisphere Contribution to Spatial Cognition.

Biological Psychology, 50(2), 103-125.

Watanabe, S., Miki, K., & Kakigi, R. (2002). Gaze Direction Affects Face Perception in

Humans. Neuroscience Letters, 325(3), 163-166.

Waters, E., & Deane, K. E. (1985). Defining and Assessing Individual Differences in Attachment

Relationships: Q-Methodology and the Organization of Behavior in Infancy and Early

Childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1), 41-65.

Winnicott, D. W. (1960). Ego Distortion in Terms of True and False Self. The Maturational

Processes and the Facilitating Environment, 140-152.

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 17

Footnotes
1
This is different from Jean Laplanches term, trangret (Laplanche, 1999).
2
Psychoanalyst Morris Eagle has written on the connection between attachment and sexuality noting that there may
be incompatibilities between security attachment and libido (Eagle, 2005). However I believe he is describing the
pseudosecure couple rather than the securely attached couple when postulating the early death of mutual sexual
attraction during marriage.

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 18

Figure 1 -- Secure/Insecure Spectrum. This graph is intended to map out secure versus insecure

partners with several overlays included. From this we can look at attachment from a physically

proximal/distal, intersubjective, and object relations perspectives. The yellow colored radiation

from the center is intended to illustrate where the pseudosecure couple might fit within the

secure/insecure spectrum.

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 19

Figure 2 -- Axes of time and proximity. Secures and insecures alike may be understood in terms

of tolerating time with and physical proximity to their primary attachment figure.

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev
 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. 20

Figure 3 - Right brain to right brain interaction encompassing the near senses involved at close

physical proximity. Partners are face-to-face, eye-to-eye, and are co-regulating via pupil

dialation, eye movement, and orbicular muscles surround the eye. Through vocalization,

partners co-regulate via mutually modulated prosodic speaking tones and utterances (the

language portion of speech is primarily left-hemisphere). Through skin-to-skin contact, partners

co-regulate via non-verbal cues of approach and withdrawal (involving other senses) as well as

skin temperature, pressure of touch, and other tactile sensations. Both olfaction (smell) and

gustation (taste) are strong co-regulators that, with high frequency, become an issue with

avoidant partners. Neurologically, there is well-documented evidence linking highly attuned,

positively valenced, close physical interaction with activation of right laterized medial

structures, traversing sub-cortical and higher cortical regions (reviewed in-depth in later

chapters).

Copyright 2006 Stan Tatkin, Psy.D. all rights reserved

12th rev