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 splitting?

Attachment avoidance

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

AttachmentInterpersonalDevelopmental+1

Splitting

Splitting can simplify unbearable ambivalence but may destabilise relationships, teams, and self-experience.

DefenceInterpersonalAffect+1

Definition

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

BAn all-or-none way of organising self, others, or situations into wholly good or wholly bad categories when mixed representations feel intolerable.

Core process

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

BConflicting positive and negative representations are not integrated, so affective state strongly shapes the current view.

Look for

AMinimises distress · Misses sessions after closeness

BSudden idealisation or devaluation · Team splitting

Patient language

A“I do not need anyone”

B“They are the only one who understands me”

Maintaining cycle

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

BAttachment threat -> intense affect -> polarised appraisal -> rupture -> threat increases

Treatment leverage

AMake support tolerable without forcing dependency.

BHelp the patient tolerate mixed representations without escalating shame or abandonment fear.

Check before using

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

BThe person can hold mixed views but is making a stable, evidence-based judgement.

Formulation language

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

Open full guide

Formulation language

Under attachment threat, splitting may make it hard to hold mixed feelings about self and others, intensifying rupture and repair cycles.

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 splitting?

Attachment avoidance

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

AttachmentInterpersonalDevelopmental+1

Splitting

Splitting can simplify unbearable ambivalence but may destabilise relationships, teams, and self-experience.

DefenceInterpersonalAffect+1

Definition

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

BAn all-or-none way of organising self, others, or situations into wholly good or wholly bad categories when mixed representations feel intolerable.

Core process

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

BConflicting positive and negative representations are not integrated, so affective state strongly shapes the current view.

Look for

AMinimises distress · Misses sessions after closeness

BSudden idealisation or devaluation · Team splitting

Patient language

A“I do not need anyone”

B“They are the only one who understands me”

Maintaining cycle

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

BAttachment threat -> intense affect -> polarised appraisal -> rupture -> threat increases

Treatment leverage

AMake support tolerable without forcing dependency.

BHelp the patient tolerate mixed representations without escalating shame or abandonment fear.

Check before using

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

BThe person can hold mixed views but is making a stable, evidence-based judgement.

Formulation language

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

Open full guide

Formulation language

Under attachment threat, splitting may make it hard to hold mixed feelings about self and others, intensifying rupture and repair cycles.

Open full guide

Browse the map Use both hypotheses