A Systemic Conceptualization of Intimate Partner Violence: Attachment and Differentiation

Attachment Theory Applied to IPV

Theoretically, when partners with opposing closeness and distance needs (e.g., insecure anxious and insecure avoidant) or when partners who both desire intense closeness are paired (e.g., insecure anxious and insecure anxious), finding a balancing point may be especially difficult and the attachment system may become aroused frequently (Pistole, 1994; Velotti et al., 2018). In these adult romantic relationships, one or both partners may have experienced attachment injuries, and increased proximity may not elicit the intended safe and secure feeling. The anger response that at one point elicited caregiving behaviors in their attachment figure may actually heighten the perception of threats to the relationship for one or both partners, triggering fears of abandonment or rejection and snowballing into an explosion of violence (Brown et al., 2010; Park, 2016; Shaver et al., 2009). Thus, in these relationships, violence may serve as a way of relieving the built up anger triggered by attachment anxiety and rebalancing the closeness and distance between the partners.

Research applying attachment theory to IPV has suggested that it may be the interaction of complementary insecure attachment styles in relationships that triggers violent behavior. For instance, research has found that IPV occurred when the perpetrator was high in attachment anxiety (fearing abandonment) and the other partner was high in attachment avoidance (fearing intimacy; Roberts & Noller, 1998 cited in Allison et al., 2008; Park, 2016; Velotti et al., 2018. Similarly, research has shown that IPV occurs in couples when a male high in attachment avoidance is “mispaired” with a female high in attachment anxiety (Allison et al., 2008; Doumas et al., 2008). Still other research has found that violence was more likely to occur in couples in which both members were high in attachment anxiety (preoccupied attachment style; Allison et al., 2008; Park, 2016; Velotti et al., 2016) or when partners demonstrate behaviors of attachment insecurity (Karakur et al., 2016; Oka et al., 2014).

Bowen Family Systems Theory Applied to IPV

Although Bowen did not specifically address violence in relationships in his theory, it stands to reason that IPV may be a combination between an extreme manifestation of marital conflict (Bartle & Rosen, 1994; Titleman, 2003) or symptom development in one partner, depending on the severity of the violence. Violence becomes a way to regulate the distance in couples. The togetherness force draws the partners closer to each other and those with lower differentiation will succumb to the togetherness force, thereby fusing to one another (Bartle & Rosen, 1994). However, in that fusion, one’s individual identity is lost in the relational identity, which becomes overwhelming, and distance is needed. The conflict or violent explosion that happens forces cutoff between the members of the primary dyad. It is as though the couple is so anxious about being too close that they have to physically push each other apart, but the violence also physically restrains the other partner, so they have to stay close at the same time (Allison et al., 2008). In the aftermath of the violence, the couple will create distance as they attempt to heal and make sense of the incident. Too much distance combined with attempts from outsiders, such as law enforcement, to intervene is then perceived as a threat to the relationship and the individual identities, so the trauma of the violence also inadvertently bonds them together, a process that has been labeled traumatic bonding (Dutton & Painter, 1993).

Some research has supported this theoretical conceptualization of IPV, finding that couples experiencing either unidirectional or bidirectional IPV have higher reactivity to each other. Furthermore, distressed couples’ communication is “characterized by a heightened sensitivity to their partners’ behavior and their interactions are related to greater behavioral dependency” (Bartle & Rosen, 1994, p. 228). Allison and colleagues (2008) also found that violence can be used as both a distancing and a pursuit strategy.

An additional consideration in this conceptualization is the concept of power. The partner who begins overfunctioning for the relationship will engage in behaviors to ensure the stability of the relationship and the perception of the relationship to outsiders, serving to maintain the relationship and enable the behavior (Titleman, 2003). The underfunctioner may be the symptomatic partner who may actually have more power and control over the relationship than it appears. This dynamic, combined with the inability to regulate distance in the relationship, may trigger violence more readily when conflict is already present.

Initial Information

The therapist spent the first few sessions exploring the history of the couple and identifying a time line of the “problem.” The couple reported that they had always argued, sometimes with the conflicts being verbally volatile. They characterized the conflict early in their relationship as aggressive bidirectional verbal altercations. The physical conflict then began approximately 2.5 years ago when their eldest daughter was only a few months old. Justin reported that at that point in their relationship, Judy had to spend more and more time with their daughter and did not seem to have enough time for him. Justin felt displaced and struggled to build a connection with their daughter because Judy was the primary caregiver while Justin worked. Judy then became unexpectedly pregnant again and developed hyperemesis gravidarum. She was tired and sick all of the time, so when she was not caring for the baby, she was in bed. Justin became resentful of attention who received from Judy, including their daughters. As Justin became increasingly lonely, he also became increasingly angry with Judy. Unbeknownst to Judy, he also began to seek out affection from online dating sites, triangulating others into Justin and Judy’s relationship, while simultaneously restricting Judy’s contact with family and friends. Over time, their interaction dynamics became polarized, with Justin becoming increasingly aggressive and Judy becoming increasingly withdrawn. The physical violence began initially as physical restraint when Judy would attempt to walk away from Justin as she had in the past during arguments. He began by blocking her path, so she could not leave the room, then escalated to grabbing her arms, and continued to pinning her against the wall. In the incident that brought them into therapy, Justin again escalated when he slapped Judy in the face and hit her in the stomach.

Initial Case Conceptualization

Justin and Judy present in the families with preschool-age children life cycle stage; however, it seems there was attachment trauma experienced in the transition to parenthood stage, resulting in them being unable to move forward in their life cycle. From an integrative Bowen Family Systems and Attachment Theories perspective, Justin appears to have insecure anxious attachment style as evidenced by his discomfort with separation from her and his attempts to fuse with her. Justin is unable to fuse with Judy and unable to respond to her in a differentiated way communicating his unmet need, and he begins to seek outside companionship to meet that fusion need. In his relationship with Judy, he becomes emotionally reactive and engages his childlike attempts to continue to garner her attention by displaying angry and aggressive behavior. Judy does not respond to Justin’s protest attempt because she is not capable due to the familial and medical issues she is individually struggling with, resulting in Justin escalating his protest attempts. Judy presents with an insecure avoidant attachment style in her relationship with Justin as evidenced by her discomfort with closeness with Justin. She attempts to cutoff from Justin while fusing with their infant/toddler children instead. As the children are in such a young age and such a high need, symptom development is not necessary to create the triangulation. The imbalance created because Judy is the primary caregiver and Justin does little to care for the children creates a fusion dynamic between Judy and the children while Justin is cutoff. The IPV that manifests in this relational context becomes a symptom within Justin as well as an exaggerated relational conflict response within the couple.

Family of Origin Information

In the next phase of therapy, the therapist focused on gathering family of origin from Justin and Judy to better understand the attachment style and differentiation levels they individually brought into this relationship. Judy reported that her father was abusive toward her mother, other women he dated when he and Judy’s mother were separated (although they never actually divorced), and toward her. She reported that she had an older sister who experienced behavioral problems during high school and who moved out while Judy was in middle school. Judy reported feeling like a pawn between her mother and father’s relationship. She further explained that her mother struggled with substance use and she frequently had to care for her mother when she was under the influence. Judy reported identifying more and getting along better with men, perceiving them as strong, while she had a negative opinion of women, perceiving them as weak. Justin reported that he was raised by a single parent, his mother. He further explained that he did not have a relationship with his biological father. He reported having a close relationship with her until he was a teenager, at which time she remarried his stepfather, with whom he had a conflictual relationship. He reported that his stepfather had two sons from his prior marriage for whom he had shared custody.

Family of Origin Conceptualization

Judy was triangulated into her relationship between her parents. She experienced her sister’s launching into adulthood as an abandonment. Judy’s parents’ lower differentiation levels were evidenced through the multitude of symptoms experienced including Judy’s sister’s behavioral problems, her mother’s substance use, her father’s infidelity, and his volatile anger and violent behavior. She developed an insecure avoidant attachment, developing a negative opinion of others and a comfort with independence. Judy perceived closeness as vulnerability.

Justin grew up experiencing comfort with fusion to his mother, leading him to develop an insecure anxious attachment style. As there was not a father figure in his life until his teenage years, he filled the role of emotional partner for his mother. He developed a positive image of his mother and others, while a negative view of himself, as he experienced separation anxiety from her and fear of growing independent. When he approached the launching year, Justin’s mother found a romantic partner; however, Justin was not prepared for the change in emotional distance with his mother. He resented his stepfather for taking his mother from him, perceiving their marriage and the entrance of his children into their family as a rejection.

Therapeutic Interventions

Now having a firm understanding of the family of origin dynamics of each partner, as well as background of the presenting issue, the therapist integrating Bowen Family Systems and attachment theories determines the best interventions for Judy and Justin. The therapist has already engaged in a genogram as discussed above. From a Bowen Family Systems perspective, maintaining a differentiated stance, also referred to as an “I position,” will be very important in working with Judy and Justin given their differing distance needs and difficulty regulating distance. This differentiated stance will also serve to model for and reduce Justin and Judy’s emotionally reactive responses in session.

Utilizing a systemic hypothesis will also be an effective tool with Justin and Judy as it serves multiple purposes. First, it will help Justin and Judy understand their ongoing patterns of interactions. This systemic hypothesis will help Justin and Judy understand each of their roles in their conflict and how their individual attachment styles intersect to form their relational dynamics. Further, the therapist can utilize psychoeducation to discuss the cycle of violence with Justin and Judy.

Next, the therapist will discuss individual coping strategies with Justin and Judy to help them learn to better manage their individual experiences of chronic anxiety. Communication strategies in session will serve to help Justin and Judy communicate about their attachment anxieties while allowing them to manage their emotional reactivity. Finally, the therapist will assign relationship experiments to encourage Justin and Judy to engage each other in differentiated responses when interacting between therapy sessions.