Understanding why two people repeatedly hurt each other, why some couples become trapped in pursue-and-withdraw cycles, and why abusive relationships must never be mistaken for ordinary relationship difficulties.

One of the most important distinctions in relationship psychology is understanding that not every destructive relationship operates in the same way.

Two people can argue constantly, trigger each other’s insecurities, separate, reconcile and repeatedly hurt one another. But the psychological mechanisms behind their behaviour may be very different.

Sometimes two people are activating unresolved emotional wounds in each other.

Sometimes they have developed an anxious–avoidant attachment pattern.

And sometimes what appears to be a mutually destructive relationship is actually an abusive relationship in which one person is exercising power and control over the other.

These distinctions matter because the wrong interpretation can lead to the wrong treatment, the wrong boundaries and, in some circumstances, increased danger.

Let’s examine each pattern.

1. Mutual trauma activation

What is happening?

Mutual trauma activation occurs when experiences from someone’s past influence how they interpret and respond to situations in the present, and the other person’s behaviour activates similar emotional vulnerabilities.

Neither person necessarily intends to cause distress.

However, their emotional responses can become mutually reinforcing.

For example, imagine two people entering a relationship.

Person A grew up experiencing rejection, inconsistency or abandonment.

Person B grew up in an environment where emotional demands, criticism or conflict felt threatening.

When Person A senses emotional distance, they seek reassurance.

When Person B experiences repeated requests for reassurance, they feel pressured and withdraw.

Person A interprets withdrawal as rejection.

Person B interprets pursuit as criticism or control.

Both become emotionally activated.

Both react.

Neither feels understood.

The neuroscience behind it

Several processes may be involved.

Threat detection: The amygdala helps identify potential threats. Previous experiences can influence how quickly someone interprets an interaction as threatening.

Emotional memory: The hippocampus and associated memory networks help place experiences into context. Sometimes a present-day situation can evoke feelings associated with an earlier experience.

Stress response: The autonomic nervous system responds to perceived threat, potentially producing increased heart rate, muscle tension, agitation or withdrawal.

Executive functioning: When emotional arousal becomes intense, it can become harder to pause, consider another person’s perspective and regulate impulsive reactions.

The result can be a situation where two people are responding not only to each other, but also to what the interaction represents to them psychologically.

What does this look like in everyday life?

• A delayed text message triggers anxiety.
• A request for space is interpreted as abandonment.
• A disagreement becomes a perceived rejection.
• A question is interpreted as criticism.
• One person becomes defensive while the other becomes increasingly distressed.
• Both later regret what they said.

An important feature is that both individuals can usually reflect on their own behaviour and recognise that they contributed to the conflict.

Can it be repaired?

Potentially, yes.

The essential requirement is that both individuals accept responsibility for their own behaviour.

They need to learn to distinguish past emotional experiences from present-day circumstances.

For example:

Instead of saying:

“You always abandon me.”

Try:

“When you withdraw during an argument, I feel anxious. I would find it helpful if we agreed when we could return to the conversation.”

Instead of saying:

“You are always demanding.”

Try:

“When I feel overwhelmed, I need a little time to regulate myself. I will let you know when I can continue the conversation.”

The objective is to replace emotional reactions with conscious communication.

The important distinction: Mutual trauma activation does not mean both people are equally abusive. It describes an interaction between emotional vulnerabilities, not a conclusion about responsibility or power.

2. Anxious–avoidant attachment

The pursue–withdraw relationship cycle

This is one of the most frequently discussed relationship patterns.

It involves two different ways of responding to perceived threats to emotional connection.

One person may become increasingly anxious when they feel distance.

The other may become increasingly uncomfortable when they feel emotionally pressured.

Neither necessarily understands what is happening.

The anxious attachment response

A person with anxious attachment tendencies may:

• Need frequent reassurance.
• Become distressed when communication changes.
• Worry about being abandoned.
• Overanalyse messages and conversations.
• Seek immediate resolution after arguments.
• Find uncertainty particularly difficult.
• Become increasingly focused on the other person’s availability.

Their underlying fear may be:

If I cannot restore this connection, I might lose this person.

The avoidant attachment response

A person with avoidant attachment tendencies may:

• Feel uncomfortable with emotional intensity.
• Withdraw during disagreements.
• Need considerable personal space.
• Find emotional dependency overwhelming.
• Struggle to express vulnerability.
• Avoid difficult conversations.
• Prefer to process emotions independently.

Their underlying fear may be:

If I become too emotionally involved, I will lose my independence or get hurt.

Avoidant tendencies do not automatically mean someone is uncaring. Equally, anxious attachment does not mean someone is manipulative.

Attachment styles are useful psychological frameworks, not fixed diagnoses or permanent personality categories.

How the cycle develops

The anxious–avoidant cycle

1. An emotional trigger occurs

One person senses distance or reduced affection.

2. The anxious partner pursues

They seek reassurance, answers, attention or closeness.

3. The avoidant partner withdraws

They feel overwhelmed and seek distance.

4. Anxiety increases

The withdrawal intensifies the first person’s fear of abandonment.

5. Both become defensive

One pursues harder; the other withdraws further.

6. Temporary reconciliation

One returns, the other feels reassured, and the cycle may begin again.

Why can this become addictive?

The unpredictability of emotional availability can create powerful anticipation.

When the withdrawing partner returns, the anxious partner may experience considerable relief.

When the pursuing partner finally stops demanding closeness, the avoidant partner may feel relief from emotional pressure.

Both can begin associating the end of conflict with emotional comfort.

But this is not the same as resolving the underlying problem.

How can this relationship improve?

Both need to change their responses.

The anxious partner needs to develop:

• Self-soothing skills.
• Tolerance of uncertainty.
• Independent interests and relationships.
• The ability to communicate needs without repeated demands.

The avoidant partner needs to develop:

• Emotional communication.
• Greater tolerance of vulnerability.
• Consistent reassurance.
• The ability to take space without disappearing or punishing the other person.

A useful agreement might be:

“I need 30 minutes to calm down. I am not abandoning this conversation. Let’s come back to it at 7 pm.”

This provides space without creating unnecessary uncertainty.

The important distinction: Anxious–avoidant attachment is not automatically an abusive dynamic. However, deliberate silent treatment, intimidation, threats and controlling behaviour should not be excused as attachment styles.

3. Abuse and coercive control

Power, intimidation and domination

This is where we must be particularly careful.

An abusive relationship is not simply a relationship where two people have unresolved trauma, poor communication or incompatible attachment styles.

Coercive control involves a pattern of behaviour designed to exercise power over another person, restrict their autonomy or make them subordinate.

It may involve physical violence, but it does not have to.

It can be psychological, emotional, financial, sexual or technological.

What does coercive control look like?

It can include:

• Monitoring telephone calls, messages or movements.
• Controlling access to money.
• Preventing contact with family and friends.
• Threatening to remove children, pets or possessions.
• Humiliation and repeated degradation.
• Intimidation and threats.
• Making someone feel frightened to disagree.
• Restricting independence.
• Using affection and withdrawal to punish or manipulate.
• Harassment following separation.
• Threatening consequences when boundaries are established.

The important issue is the pattern and its impact on the person’s freedom, safety and autonomy.

What happens psychologically?

Living under coercive control can create a state of chronic threat.

The individual may become increasingly vigilant, anxious and preoccupied with avoiding conflict.

They may begin changing their behaviour to prevent the other person’s reactions.

For example:

• They stop expressing opinions.
• They avoid certain subjects.
• They check the other person’s mood before speaking.
• They account for their spending.
• They become isolated.
• They question their judgement.
• They begin believing they are responsible for preventing the abuse.

This can produce a profound erosion of personal identity and self-confidence.

Why does the person experiencing abuse sometimes return?

There can be many reasons.

• Fear of the consequences of leaving.
• Financial dependency.
• Threats and intimidation.
• Concern for children or pets.
• Isolation.
• Hope that the person will change.
• Emotional attachment.
• Intermittent affection.
• Trauma-related symptoms.
• Practical barriers to establishing an independent life.

Returning does not mean that the abuse was acceptable.

It does not mean the individual wanted it.

And it certainly does not transfer responsibility for the abusive behaviour to them.

Can coercive control be repaired through couples therapy?

This is a crucial clinical distinction.

Where one partner is using coercion, intimidation or violence to control the other, conventional couples therapy can be inappropriate and potentially unsafe.

It can create opportunities for further manipulation, retaliation or intimidation.

Individual specialist assessment and safety planning should take priority.

The abusive person must take responsibility for their behaviour through appropriate specialist intervention. The other person should have independent support.

The important distinction: Abuse is about behaviour, power and control. A history of trauma, attachment insecurity or emotional difficulties does not excuse it.

4. Comparing all three patterns

This is perhaps the most useful part of understanding the differences.

Feature	Mutual trauma activation	Anxious–avoidant attachment	Coercive control
Main dynamic	Emotional triggers	Pursuit and withdrawal	Power and domination
Primary difficulty	Emotional regulation	Fear of closeness or abandonment	Restriction of autonomy
Conflict	Reactive	Repeating pursue–withdraw	Often used to maintain control
Accountability	Both can take responsibility	Both can change their responses	Responsibility lies with the person using abuse
Boundaries	Can be learned and respected	May initially feel difficult	May be challenged or punished
Fear	Can occur on both sides	Often linked to attachment insecurity	May be deliberately created or exploited
Treatment	Individual and potentially couples therapy	Attachment-informed therapy	Specialist individual intervention and safety planning

These categories can overlap. For example, somebody may have anxious attachment and also use coercive behaviour. Someone experiencing coercive control may develop anxious or hypervigilant responses.

The presence of attachment difficulties never rules out abuse.

5. How do you establish which pattern you are dealing with?

I would use the following questions in individual assessment.

Relationship dynamics: reflection exercise

These questions are for reflection, not a diagnostic or abuse-risk assessment. Answer based on repeated behaviour rather than isolated incidents.

1. Can both people express disagreement without fear of retaliation?Usually yesSometimesNo, one person is frightened of the other’s reaction

2. Can both people accept responsibility for their own behaviour?Yes, both can reflect and apologiseOne person struggles more than the otherOne person consistently blames, intimidates or controls the other

3. What happens when one person establishes a boundary?It is generally respectedIt causes anxiety or temporary withdrawalThere are threats, punishment, intimidation or attempts to override it

4. Does either person control the other’s finances, movements, friendships or communications?NoThere are disagreements but no controlYes, there is a pattern of restriction or monitoring

5. What happens after an argument?Both reflect and work towards repairOne pursues and the other withdrawsThere is fear, retaliation, intimidation or punishment

Review my answers

If there are threats, violence, stalking, strangulation, sexual coercion or fear of retaliation, those need to be assessed separately. A questionnaire cannot establish safety.

6. Can two people change their relationship patterns?

Yes, where the relationship is safe and both genuinely want to change.

But there is a fundamental difference between wanting a relationship to work and doing the psychological work necessary to make it healthy.

Both people must demonstrate change through consistent actions.

I would recommend the following therapeutic framework:

Area of work	Therapeutic objective
Individual trauma assessment	Understand previous experiences and triggers
Emotional regulation	Reduce impulsive and reactive responses
Attachment work	Develop greater security and independence
Communication	Learn to disagree without attacking
Boundaries	Establish respect for individual autonomy
Accountability	Recognise behaviour without blame-shifting
Behavioural change	Demonstrate consistency over time

One of the most important principles is that each individual must take responsibility for their own emotional regulation.

Your partner can support your emotional wellbeing, but they cannot become responsible for regulating your entire nervous system.

Equally, you cannot be expected to regulate yourself around somebody else’s intimidation or abuse.

7. The final psychological distinction

There are three very different questions here.

Mutual trauma activation:

Can we learn to stop triggering and reacting to each other’s unresolved emotional wounds?

Anxious–avoidant attachment:

Can we develop enough emotional security to stop pursuing and withdrawing?

Coercive control:

Can the person using power and intimidation stop the abusive behaviour, and can the other person be safe and independent?

Notice how different those questions are.

The first two may involve developing healthier relationship skills together.

The third requires addressing abuse, power and safety. It cannot be solved simply by teaching both people to communicate better.

My concluding thought

Sometimes two people meet carrying experiences they have never fully understood.

They find comfort in one another, experience an intense connection and believe that their love will heal what happened before.

But love does not automatically resolve trauma.

Attraction does not automatically create emotional compatibility.

And understanding why someone behaves as they do does not mean accepting behaviour that causes harm.

The real measure of a healthy relationship is not how intensely two people miss each other after separation.

It is how safely, consistently and respectfully they treat each other when they are together.

A healthy relationship is not one in which neither person ever becomes triggered. It is one in which both can recognise their feelings, take responsibility for their behaviour, respect boundaries and repair difficulties without fear, humiliation or control.

Linda CJ Turner | Trauma Therapist | Neuroscience & Emotional Intelligence Practitioner | Advocate for Women’s Empowerment

Educational article. Attachment patterns and trauma activation are explanatory frameworks, not diagnoses. Coercive control and domestic abuse require specialist assessment.