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: negative core beliefs or attachment avoidance?

Negative core beliefs

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

CognitionDevelopmentalAttachment+1

Attachment avoidance

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

AttachmentInterpersonalDevelopmental+1

Definition

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

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

Core process

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

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

Look for

AGlobal self-statements · Persistent themes across situations

BMinimises distress · Misses sessions after closeness

Patient language

A“I am not good enough”

B“I do not need anyone”

Maintaining cycle

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

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

Treatment leverage

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

BMake support tolerable without forcing dependency.

Check before using

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

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

Formulation language

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

Open full guide

Formulation language

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

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: negative core beliefs or attachment avoidance?

Negative core beliefs

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

CognitionDevelopmentalAttachment+1

Attachment avoidance

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

AttachmentInterpersonalDevelopmental+1

Definition

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

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

Core process

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

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

Look for

AGlobal self-statements · Persistent themes across situations

BMinimises distress · Misses sessions after closeness

Patient language

A“I am not good enough”

B“I do not need anyone”

Maintaining cycle

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

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

Treatment leverage

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

BMake support tolerable without forcing dependency.

Check before using

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

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

Formulation language

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

Open full guide

Formulation language

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

Open full guide

Browse the map Use both hypotheses