Alternative hypotheses

Compare mechanisms

Compare function, sequence, patient language, and treatment leverage. The aim is not to choose a label—it is to identify which hypothesis best explains this person’s pattern.

Ask this

Which pattern better explains the sequence, protective function, and consequences: attachment avoidance or negative core beliefs?

Attachment avoidance

Attachment avoidance may appear as self-sufficiency, emotional distance, minimisation of need, or disengagement under relational stress.

AttachmentInterpersonalDevelopmental+1

Negative core beliefs

Negative core beliefs bias attention and meaning-making, often linking early experience to current automatic thoughts, affect, and behaviour.

CognitionDevelopmentalAttachment+1

Definition

AA relational strategy of down-regulating attachment needs, dependence, and emotional closeness to preserve autonomy or reduce vulnerability.

BGlobal, rigid, overgeneralised beliefs about the self, others, or world that shape interpretation and emotional response.

Core process

AAttachment cues activate vulnerability or threat, which is managed through distance, deactivation, intellectualisation, or self-reliance.

BA schema-like belief filters events so ambiguous information is interpreted as confirming defectiveness, danger, unlovability, or failure.

Look for

AMinimises distress · Misses sessions after closeness

BGlobal self-statements · Persistent themes across situations

Patient language

A“I do not need anyone”

B“I am not good enough”

Maintaining cycle

ANeed -> vulnerability -> distance -> short-term safety -> unmet need persists

BTrigger -> negative meaning -> affect -> coping behaviour -> apparent confirmation of belief

Treatment leverage

AMake support tolerable without forcing dependency.

BWork at the level of meaning, not only surface thoughts.

Check before using

ADistance reflects healthy boundaries, cultural preference, or a realistic safety concern.

BThe thought is situation-specific and changes with new evidence.

Formulation language

Attachment avoidance may protect against vulnerability by creating distance, but it also limits support and repair.

Open full guide

Formulation language

A negative core belief of defectiveness appears to shape threat appraisals, self-criticism, and avoidance of disconfirming feedback.

Open full guide

Browse the map Use both hypotheses

Alternative hypotheses

Compare mechanisms

Compare function, sequence, patient language, and treatment leverage. The aim is not to choose a label—it is to identify which hypothesis best explains this person’s pattern.

Ask this

Which pattern better explains the sequence, protective function, and consequences: attachment avoidance or negative core beliefs?

Attachment avoidance

Attachment avoidance may appear as self-sufficiency, emotional distance, minimisation of need, or disengagement under relational stress.

AttachmentInterpersonalDevelopmental+1

Negative core beliefs

Negative core beliefs bias attention and meaning-making, often linking early experience to current automatic thoughts, affect, and behaviour.

CognitionDevelopmentalAttachment+1

Definition

AA relational strategy of down-regulating attachment needs, dependence, and emotional closeness to preserve autonomy or reduce vulnerability.

BGlobal, rigid, overgeneralised beliefs about the self, others, or world that shape interpretation and emotional response.

Core process

AAttachment cues activate vulnerability or threat, which is managed through distance, deactivation, intellectualisation, or self-reliance.

BA schema-like belief filters events so ambiguous information is interpreted as confirming defectiveness, danger, unlovability, or failure.

Look for

AMinimises distress · Misses sessions after closeness

BGlobal self-statements · Persistent themes across situations

Patient language

A“I do not need anyone”

B“I am not good enough”

Maintaining cycle

ANeed -> vulnerability -> distance -> short-term safety -> unmet need persists

BTrigger -> negative meaning -> affect -> coping behaviour -> apparent confirmation of belief

Treatment leverage

AMake support tolerable without forcing dependency.

BWork at the level of meaning, not only surface thoughts.

Check before using

ADistance reflects healthy boundaries, cultural preference, or a realistic safety concern.

BThe thought is situation-specific and changes with new evidence.

Formulation language

Attachment avoidance may protect against vulnerability by creating distance, but it also limits support and repair.

Open full guide

Formulation language

A negative core belief of defectiveness appears to shape threat appraisals, self-criticism, and avoidance of disconfirming feedback.

Open full guide

Browse the map Use both hypotheses