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: splitting or attachment avoidance?

Splitting

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

DefenceInterpersonalAffect+1

Attachment avoidance

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

AttachmentInterpersonalDevelopmental+1

Definition

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

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

Core process

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

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

Look for

ASudden idealisation or devaluation · Team splitting

BMinimises distress · Misses sessions after closeness

Patient language

A“They are the only one who understands me”

B“I do not need anyone”

Maintaining cycle

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

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

Treatment leverage

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

BMake support tolerable without forcing dependency.

Check before using

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

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

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

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: splitting or attachment avoidance?

Splitting

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

DefenceInterpersonalAffect+1

Attachment avoidance

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

AttachmentInterpersonalDevelopmental+1

Definition

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

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

Core process

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

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

Look for

ASudden idealisation or devaluation · Team splitting

BMinimises distress · Misses sessions after closeness

Patient language

A“They are the only one who understands me”

B“I do not need anyone”

Maintaining cycle

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

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

Treatment leverage

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

BMake support tolerable without forcing dependency.

Check before using

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

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

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

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