relationships

February 10, 2026

The Roots of Protection: Integrating Attachment Theory and the Four F’s of Trauma

Integrating Attachment Theory and the Four F’s of Trauma

Understanding How Our Earliest Relationships Shape Our Protective Responses

Kevin Brough, MAMFT, C.Ad.

VisionLogic | Ascend Counseling & Wellness

Introduction

Every human being enters the world with a fundamental need: connection. Before we can walk, talk, or reason, we are already learning the most important lesson of our lives—whether the world is safe, whether we matter, and whether others will be there when we need them. These early relational experiences don’t simply fade into distant memory; they become the invisible architecture of our nervous system, shaping how we perceive threat, manage distress, and protect ourselves throughout life.

The integration of Attachment Theory with the Four F’s of Trauma Response provides clinicians and individuals with a powerful framework for understanding the deep connections between early relational experiences and adult protective behaviors. This article explores how attachment injuries represent our earliest forms of trauma, examines the spectrum of traumatic experiences, and introduces a comprehensive assessment approach for establishing a therapeutic baseline.

Attachment Theory: The Foundation of Relational Patterns

John Bowlby’s pioneering work on attachment theory established that the bonds formed between infants and their primary caregivers create internal working models that influence relationships across the lifespan (Bowlby, 1969/1982). These early experiences create templates—expectations about whether others will be responsive, whether expressing needs is safe, and whether the self is worthy of care and attention.

Mary Ainsworth’s subsequent research identified distinct patterns of attachment: secure, anxious-ambivalent (preoccupied), and avoidant (dismissive), with Mary Main later identifying the disorganized (fearful-avoidant) pattern (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Main & Solomon, 1990). Each pattern represents not only a relational style but also an adaptation—a strategy that the developing child has created to maximize safety and connection within their particular caregiving environment.

The Four Attachment Styles

Secure Attachment develops when caregivers consistently respond to a child’s needs with warmth and attunement. Adults with secure attachment generally have positive self- and other views, regulate emotions effectively, and feel comfortable with both intimacy and autonomy (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).

Anxious-Preoccupied Attachment arises from inconsistent caregiving, in which the child cannot predict when comfort will be available. These individuals often experience heightened sensitivity to rejection, difficulty trusting that others will remain present, and a strong need for reassurance and validation (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment develops when caregivers are consistently emotionally unavailable or rejecting of the child’s needs. The adaptive response is to minimize attachment needs, develop strong self-reliance, and maintain emotional distance in relationships (Fraley & Shaver, 2000).

Fearful-Avoidant (Disorganized) Attachment arises in environments in which the caregiver is simultaneously both a source of comfort and a source of fear. This creates an impossible dilemma for the child—the person who should provide safety is also threatening. Adults with this pattern often experience intense approach-avoidance conflicts in relationships and may have the most difficulty with emotional regulation (Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 2016).

Attachment Injuries: Our Earliest Form of Trauma

A crucial paradigm shift in trauma-informed care is recognizing that attachment injuries represent some of the earliest and most formative traumatic experiences a person can have. Unlike acute traumatic events that occur at a specific moment in time, attachment trauma is often chronic, occurring within the context of ongoing relationships during the most vulnerable period of human development.

When a child’s fundamental needs for safety, attunement, and connection are unmet—or when the attachment figure becomes a source of threat—the developing nervous system must adapt. These adaptations are not pathological; they are intelligent survival responses. However, strategies that protected us at age two may become problematic patterns at age forty (van der Kolk, 2014).

The emerging field of developmental trauma recognizes that early relational injuries affect not just psychological functioning but the very structure and function of the brain. The neural pathways that govern threat detection, emotional regulation, and social engagement are shaped by these early experiences (Schore, 2001). This is why attachment patterns are so persistent—they are literally wired into our neurobiology.

Understanding the Spectrum of Trauma

To fully understand how protective responses develop, it is essential to recognize the various forms trauma can take. Traumatic experiences exist on a continuum, from single-incident events to pervasive developmental experiences.

Acute Trauma

Acute trauma results from a single, time-limited event such as an accident, natural disaster, assault, or sudden loss. While these experiences can have profound effects, they occur against a backdrop of otherwise stable functioning. Recovery often involves processing the specific event and restoring a sense of safety (American Psychiatric Association, 2022).

Chronic Trauma

Chronic trauma involves repeated, prolonged exposure to traumatic circumstances such as ongoing abuse, domestic violence, or living in a war zone. The repetitive nature of chronic trauma often leads to more pervasive adaptations as the individual develops coping mechanisms for an environment of persistent threat (Herman, 1992).

Complex Trauma

Complex trauma, also termed developmental trauma when it occurs in childhood, involves exposure to multiple, often invasive traumatic events, typically of an interpersonal nature, within the caregiving system (Courtois & Ford, 2009). This form of trauma profoundly impacts development across multiple domains: attachment, biology, affect regulation, dissociation, behavioral control, cognition, and self-concept.

What distinguishes complex trauma is that it typically occurs within relationships that should be sources of safety and occurs during critical developmental windows. When the people who are supposed to protect us become threats or consistently fail to meet our needs, the impact extends far beyond the events themselves. Complex trauma shapes the fundamental lens through which we perceive ourselves, others, and the world (van der Kolk, 2005).

Vicarious and Intergenerational Trauma

Trauma can also be transmitted. Vicarious trauma occurs through witnessing or learning about another’s traumatic experiences, while intergenerational trauma refers to the transmission of trauma effects across generations through biological, psychological, and social mechanisms (Yehuda & Lehrner, 2018). Research increasingly demonstrates that the effects of unresolved parental trauma can influence attachment patterns and stress responses in subsequent generations.

The Four F’s: Trauma Response Patterns

Pete Walker’s expansion of the classic fight-or-flight model to include freeze and fawn responses provides an essential framework for understanding how trauma survivors protect themselves (Walker, 2013). These responses are not conscious choices but automatic, survival-oriented reactions that develop in response to overwhelming experiences.

Fight Response

The fight response mobilizes energy toward confronting perceived threats. While this can manifest as healthy assertiveness and boundary-setting, in its traumatic form, it may appear as chronic irritability, controlling behavior, or narcissistic defenses. Those with primary fight responses often learned early that attack was the best defense—that showing vulnerability invited harm.

Flight Response

The flight response channels survival energy into escape and avoidance. A healthy flight allows us to remove ourselves from genuinely dangerous situations. However, traumatic flight responses may manifest as workaholism, perfectionism, hyperactivity, or obsessive-compulsive patterns—ways of staying in motion to avoid the stillness where overwhelming feelings might surface.

Freeze Response

When neither fighting nor fleeing is possible, the nervous system may default to freeze—a state of immobility and decreased arousal. This response conserves energy and can provide dissociative protection from overwhelming pain. Chronic freeze patterns may present as depression, dissociation, isolation, or difficulty taking action even when change is desired.

Fawn Response

The fawn response—Walker’s significant contribution to trauma theory- entails securing safety through appeasement, people-pleasing, and merging with others’ wishes. This response often develops when fight-or-flight responses were punished or rendered impossible, and when compliance reduced the threat. Fawn patterns can manifest as codependency, difficulty with boundaries, and loss of authentic self-expression.

The Integration: How Attachment Shapes Trauma Response

The theoretical integration of attachment patterns with the Four F responses reveals meaningful correlations that enhance clinical understanding. While individual presentations vary, research suggests predictable relationships between attachment adaptations and preferences for protective responses.

Anxious-preoccupied attachment often correlates with fawn and fight responses—the desperate attempts to maintain connection through pleasing or protesting behaviors that demand attention. Dismissive-avoidant attachment frequently aligns with flight and freeze responses—strategies that minimize attachment needs and reduce vulnerability through withdrawal or emotional numbing. Fearful-avoidant attachment may cycle through all four responses, reflecting the fundamental approach-avoidance conflict at its core.

Understanding these connections illuminates why certain protective strategies feel so automatic and why change can be challenging. These patterns developed together, reinforcing each other, creating a coherent—if sometimes limiting—system for navigating a threatening world.

The Baseline State: Our Default Mode of Being

The concept of a baseline state refers to our characteristic way of being in the world—our default patterns of perceiving, feeling, thinking, and responding when not under active stress or engagement. This baseline is not simply a neutral starting point; it is the product of all our formative experiences, including our attachment history and trauma responses.

Both attachment patterns and trauma responses directly influence our baseline state. A person with anxious attachment and primary fawn responses may have a baseline characterized by hypervigilance to others’ emotional states, chronic self-doubt, and difficulty accessing their own preferences. Someone with avoidant attachment and freeze tendencies might present with emotional flatness, disconnection from bodily sensations, and difficulty with sustained engagement.

Understanding one’s baseline state provides crucial information for therapeutic work. It reveals the patterns that require attention, the strengths that can be leveraged, and the areas for growth where transformation is possible. Without this understanding, therapeutic interventions may be misaligned with the individual’s actual needs and capacities.

Comprehensive Assessment: The Therapeutic Baseline Profile

Recognizing the profound connection between attachment patterns, trauma responses, and baseline functioning, VisionLogic has developed an integrated assessment approach that examines these domains together. The Attachment & Trauma Response Assessment (available at www.visionlogic.org/attachment-trauma.html) provides a comprehensive evaluation of both attachment dimensions and Four F response patterns.

This assessment measures attachment along two dimensions—anxiety (fear of abandonment, need for closeness) and avoidance (discomfort with intimacy, compulsive self-reliance)—placing individuals within the four-quadrant attachment model. Simultaneously, it evaluates tendencies toward each of the Four F responses and identifies primary and secondary protective strategies.

To provide a comprehensive baseline assessment, this assessment integrates with the Big Five Personality Assessment (www.visionlogic.org/big-5.html), which measures the OCEAN traits: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Research demonstrates significant correlations between personality dimensions and attachment patterns—for example, neuroticism strongly correlates with attachment anxiety, while extraversion and agreeableness relate to attachment security (Noftle & Shaver, 2006).

Together, these assessments generate a comprehensive Therapeutic Baseline Profile (www.visionlogic.org/baseline-profile.html) that answers three fundamental questions:

Who are you? — Your personality structure and characteristic ways of engaging with the world.

How were you shaped? — Your attachment patterns developed through early relational experiences.

How do you protect yourself? — Your trauma response strategies that were developed to manage perceived threats.

Clinical Implications and the Path Forward

Understanding the integration of attachment and trauma responses transforms clinical work. Rather than viewing problematic behaviors as pathology to be eliminated, this framework reveals them as adaptive responses that once served survival functions. The therapeutic task becomes not to attack these defenses but to understand their origins, honor their protective intent, and gradually expand the individual’s repertoire of responses.

This perspective aligns with the P3 Model (Perception of Potential Pain), which posits that most problematic behaviors stem not from pleasure-seeking but from pain avoidance. When we understand that attachment injuries created our earliest perceptions of what kinds of pain we might face—abandonment, engulfment, rejection, harm—we can trace a direct line from early wounds to current protective strategies.

The goal of therapeutic work from this perspective is not to eliminate protective responses but to build felt safety, develop earned security, and expand the range of choices available when old patterns are triggered. As Sydney Banks articulated in his Three Principles approach, our experience is created from the inside out—and as we understand the thought patterns underlying our protective responses, we gain the freedom to respond differently (Banks, 1998).

Conclusion

The integration of Attachment Theory with the Four F’s of Trauma provides a comprehensive framework for understanding how our earliest relationships shape our lifelong patterns of protection. Attachment injuries represent our first experiences of relational trauma, creating templates for how we expect to be treated and what we must do to survive.

Whether trauma is acute, chronic, complex, or intergenerational, the body and mind develop protective responses—fight, flight, freeze, or fawn—that aim to prevent anticipated pain. These responses, while potentially limiting in adulthood, were intelligent adaptations to challenging circumstances.

By establishing a comprehensive therapeutic baseline that integrates personality structure, attachment patterns, and trauma responses, clinicians and individuals gain the insight necessary for meaningful transformation. The assessments developed by VisionLogic offer evidence-informed tools for this crucial foundational work, providing the map needed to navigate the path from protection to genuine freedom.

Understanding our patterns is the first step. Transformation begins when we recognize that the strategies we developed to survive can evolve into the wisdom that helps us thrive.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). American Psychiatric Association Publishing.

Banks, S. (1998). The missing link: Reflections on philosophy and spirit. Lone Pine Publishing.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books. (Original work published 1969)

Courtois, C. A., & Ford, J. D. (Eds.). (2009). Treating complex traumatic stress disorders: An evidence-based guide. Guilford Press.

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4(2), 132–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.4.2.132

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence—from domestic abuse to political terror. Basic Books.

Lyons-Ruth, K., & Jacobvitz, D. (2016). Attachment disorganization from infancy to adulthood: Neurobiological correlates, parenting contexts, and pathways to disorder. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed., pp. 667–695). Guilford Press.

Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 121–160). University of Chicago Press.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Noftle, E. E., & Shaver, P. R. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the big five personality traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(2), 179–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.11.003

Schore, A. N. (2001). Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22(1–2), 7–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0355(200101/04)22:1<7::AID-IMHJ2>3.0.CO;2-N

van der Kolk, B. A. (2005). Developmental trauma disorder: Toward a rational diagnosis for children with complex trauma histories. Psychiatric Annals, 35(5), 401–408. https://doi.org/10.3928/00485713-20050501-06

van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.

Walker, P. (2013). Complex PTSD: From surviving to thriving. Azure Coyote.

Yehuda, R., & Lehrner, A. (2018). Intergenerational transmission of trauma effects: Putative role of epigenetic mechanisms. World Psychiatry, 17(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20568

_______________________________________________

© 2025 VisionLogic. All rights reserved.

http://www.visionlogic.org | Ascend Counseling & Wellness

Ascend Trauma Counseling & Wellness / Kevin Brough

July 17, 2025

The Best Positive Solution for Parenting

Building Emotionally Intelligent Children: Where Gottman Meets The Parenting Pyramid

As parents, we’re constantly seeking frameworks that help us raise children who are not only successful but genuinely happy and emotionally healthy. Two powerful approaches have shaped my understanding of effective parenting: John Gottman’s research on emotional intelligence in children and The Arbinger Institute’s revolutionary Parenting Pyramid. When combined, these methodologies create a comprehensive roadmap for nurturing emotionally intelligent, self-aware children.

The Foundation: Understanding Our Own Heart

The Arbinger Institute’s Parenting Pyramid places “heart” at its foundation – the recognition that our internal state as parents fundamentally shapes our children’s development. This aligns perfectly with Gottman’s emphasis on parents becoming “emotion coaches” for their children. Before we can guide our children through their emotional landscape, we must first examine our own.

When we’re in what Arbinger calls the “box” – viewing our children as objects rather than people – we unconsciously transmit this energy to them. Our children sense when we see them as problems to be solved, projects to be completed, or reflections of our own success or failure. This objectifying mindset creates emotional distance and prevents the very connection that Gottman identifies as essential for emotional coaching.

The path forward requires us to step out of the box and see our children as whole people with their own hopes, fears, dreams, and legitimate needs. This shift in perspective creates the emotional safety necessary for authentic connection and learning.

The Framework: Gottman’s Emotion Coaching

Gottman’s research reveals that emotionally intelligent children have parents who serve as emotion coaches. These parents follow a five-step process:

  1. Becoming aware of emotions – both their own and their children’s
  2. Recognizing emotions as opportunities for connection and teaching
  3. Listening empathetically and validating their child’s feelings
  4. Helping children label emotions and understand their emotional vocabulary
  5. Setting limits while problem-solving together

This process only works when built on the foundation of genuine care for our children as people, not just as recipients of our parenting techniques.

The Integration: Seeing Through Clear Eyes

When we combine these approaches, we discover that effective emotional coaching requires us to be “out of the box” in our fundamental orientation toward our children. Consider this scenario:

Your eight-year-old comes home from school upset because a friend excluded them from a group activity. If we’re in the box, we might:

  • Immediately jump to problem-solving mode
  • Minimize their feelings (“You’re being too sensitive”)
  • Make it about us (“This reflects poorly on how I’ve raised you”)
  • Focus on changing the child rather than understanding them

But when we’re out of the box, seeing our child as a person with legitimate feelings, we can engage in authentic emotion coaching:

Awareness: We notice our child’s emotional state and our own reaction to it.

Opportunity: We recognize this as a chance to deepen our connection and help our child develop emotional skills.

Empathy: We listen fully, validating their experience: “That sounds really hurtful. It makes sense that you’d feel left out.”

Labeling: We help them identify and articulate their emotions: “It sounds like you’re feeling disappointed and maybe a little angry too.”

Problem-solving: Together, we explore ways to handle similar situations in the future while maintaining appropriate boundaries.

The Transformation: From Technique to Relationship

The magic happens when we realize that emotional intelligence isn’t something we teach our children – it’s something we model and co-create with them. When our hearts are right, when we genuinely see our children as people worthy of respect and understanding, the techniques become natural expressions of our care rather than manipulative tools.

This integration requires us to:

Examine our motivations regularly: Are we emotion coaching because we genuinely want to help our child, or because we want to appear like good parents? The energy behind our actions matters more than the actions themselves.

Practice self-regulation: We cannot teach emotional intelligence while we’re emotionally dysregulated. Taking time to center ourselves before engaging with our children’s emotions is crucial.

Embrace the learning process: Both we and our children are learning to navigate emotions together. Perfection isn’t the goal – connection and growth are.

The Daily Practice: Small Moments, Big Impact

Emotional intelligence develops through countless small interactions rather than grand gestures. When we maintain an out-of-the-box heart toward our children, we naturally create more opportunities for emotional coaching:

  • The bedtime routine becomes a time for emotional check-ins
  • Car rides transform into safe spaces for sharing feelings
  • Conflicts become opportunities for teaching rather than battles to be won
  • Mistakes become learning moments rather than failures

The Long-term Vision: Raising Emotionally Intelligent Adults

When we consistently approach our children from this integrated perspective, we’re not just helping them manage their current emotions – we’re building the foundation for their future relationships, their resilience in facing life’s challenges, and their capacity to make meaningful contributions to the world.

Children who grow up with parents who see them clearly and coach them emotionally develop:

  • Strong self-awareness and emotional vocabulary
  • Healthy relationship skills
  • Resilience in facing difficulties
  • Empathy for others
  • Confidence in their ability to navigate life’s complexities

The Invitation: Start Where You Are

You don’t need to be perfect to begin this journey. Start by examining your own heart. In your next interaction with your child, pause and ask yourself: “Am I seeing them as a person right now, or as a problem to be solved?” Let that awareness guide you toward more authentic connection.

Remember, the goal isn’t to raise children who never feel difficult emotions – it’s to raise children who can navigate their emotional world with wisdom, compassion, and resilience. When we combine the clear vision of an out-of-the-box heart with the practical tools of emotion coaching, we create the conditions for our children to thrive emotionally and relationally.

The path to raising emotionally intelligent children begins with our own transformation. As we learn to see our children clearly and coach them with genuine care, we discover that we’re not just shaping their emotional development – we’re deepening our own capacity for love, understanding, and authentic connection.

Kevin Brough – Ascend Counseling & Wellness – Ascendcw.com – 435.688.1111

April 26, 2025

Strive for Second Order Change

First and Second Order Change

(Gregory Bateson interpreted by Kevin Brough, 2015)


First Order Change (Note: Pressure goes down at first)
1. Do more or less of something to decrease pressure—a BEHAVIOR CHANGE.
2. Underlying conflict not identified nor resolved
3. Nothing significant and new is learned
4. Efforts bring temporary relief, yet pressure/discomfort returns to the previous level (because the underlying conflict is not named and worked with to loosen its grip on the present moment.)
5. Old Story Still Told and still can’t talk about underlying conflicts that are causing the pressure, and “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” continues to be the story told.

(Note: In first-order change, "pressure" is the enemy, and it is decreased by just moving it around and around to different places within the closed system of marriage---through denial, lying, and controlling (fight, flight, freeze, fawn).

Second Order Change (Note: Pressure goes up at first) TRANSFORMATION — A change in capacity
1. A CHANGE IN THE FOUNDATIONAL AND FUNDAMENTAL Point of View that relooks at all things. A DEVELOPMENTAL CHANGE that supports actions that match more of what is occurring NOW.
2. Identify and address the underlying conflict. Destructive Double Bind is diffused by talking about what is happening and the double bind of “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.” Talking about it, while tolerating the discomfort without criticism and absolute blame, it starts to ease the bind, making room for identifying and addressing the underlying conflict.
3. Learn significant and new things (to address the newly defined underlying conflict.
4. Define and choose who you want to be in this situation FROM THIS NEW WAY OF SEEING THINGS (from WHAT IS NEEDED instead of letting the reaction choose for you). — this is the difference between a behavior change and TRANSFORMATION.
5. The New Story (narrative) can now begin to be told about the same perpetual situations experienced with NEW CLARITY and compassionately and talked about in kinder, yet sometimes more uncomfortable, ways.

(Note: In second-order change, "pressure/discomfort” is more immediate, but its intent is a friendly urge/force that is consciously used to transform the people and the relationship into something entirely new, often surprising to both people---for the better that is anchored in NOW and not just changing words around or putting new labels on old things. It is a fundamental development that leads to growth into maturity and awareness).
———-
Communication improves when the underlying uncomfortable conflicts are discovered, acknowledged, and addressed in a significantly different ongoing manner.
Second-order change involves doing something significantly or fundamentally different from what you have done before. The process is usually irreversible, and once you begin, returning to how you were doing things before becomes impossible.

The Difference Between First and Second-Order Change in Marriage According to Gregory Bateson

Gregory Bateson, a pioneer in systems theory, introduced concepts that offer profound insights into the dynamics of relationships, including marriage. One of his foundational ideas is the distinction between first-order and second-order change. In marriage, first-order change refers to adjustments or modifications made within an existing framework without fundamentally altering the underlying system. These changes tend to be superficial or temporary and often maintain the status quo. For instance, a couple may agree to argue less but fail to address the deeper reasons behind their conflicts. While first-order changes can provide immediate relief, they are unlikely to lead to long-lasting transformation in the relationship.

In contrast, second-order change involves a fundamental shift in the framework or structure of the relationship itself. This change challenges existing patterns, beliefs, and assumptions, leading to a transformative reorganization of the marital system. For example, instead of merely agreeing to communicate better, a couple might engage in therapy to uncover and address the emotional wounds and patterns that drive their conflicts. Second-order change requires deeper introspection, vulnerability, and a willingness to embrace discomfort for the sake of growth. While it demands more effort and commitment, it often results in a more resilient and fulfilling relationship.

The impact of these changes differs significantly. First-order changes can create the illusion of progress while underlying issues remain unaddressed, potentially leading to frustration and stagnation. Second-order changes, however, foster authentic growth by addressing core dynamics and promoting new ways of relating. Couples who achieve second-order change often feel more connected, empowered, and aligned in their shared goals and values. 

Bateson’s distinction underscores the importance of moving beyond surface-level fixes to engage in meaningful transformation.
Understanding the difference between these types of change can guide couples in navigating challenges. They can take deliberate steps toward second-order transformation by recognizing when first-order changes are insufficient. This may involve seeking professional guidance, practicing self-awareness, and cultivating a mindset of curiosity and openness. Ultimately, embracing second-order change can lead to a more adaptive, harmonious, and enduring partnership.


Five Examples of First-Order Change Conversations
1.	Scenario: "Let’s set a rule to never go to bed angry."
        Explanation: The couple agrees on a behavioral guideline but does
           not explore the underlying emotions fueling their arguments.
	Relationship Impact: Temporary improvement, as unresolved feelings may
           resurface later.
2.	Scenario: "We’ll take turns doing the dishes."
	Explanation: A practical adjustment to household duties without addressing
           potential resentment or inequality.
	Relationship Impact: Reduces conflict in the short term but may not resolve
           deeper power dynamics.
3.	Scenario: "Let’s spend Saturday nights together instead of with friends."
	Explanation: Increases time together but does not address the quality of
           connection.
	Relationship Impact: Boosts companionship briefly but may leave emotional
           needs unmet.
4.	Scenario: "I’ll stop checking my phone during dinner."
	Explanation: A behavioral change without exploring why disconnection occurs.
	Relationship Impact: It may improve moments of presence but doesn’t foster
           deeper intimacy.
5.	Scenario: "Let’s schedule weekly date nights."
	Explanation: Creates structure for time together but doesn’t address 
           relational patterns.
	Relationship Impact: Strengthens routine but might not deepen emotional
           bonds.


Five Examples of Second-Order Change Conversations
1.	Scenario: "Why do we argue so much? Let’s explore this in therapy."
	Explanation: Seeks to uncover and address the root causes of conflict.
	Relationship Impact: Facilitates deeper understanding and long-term
           resolution.
2.	Scenario: "How can we create a shared vision for our future?"
	Explanation: Invites collaboration on long-term goals and values.
	Relationship Impact: Strengthens alignment and commitment.
3.	Scenario: "I’ve realized I need to work on my emotional triggers. Will you
           support me?"
	Explanation: I think it shows personal growth areas and asks for
           partnership.
	Relationship Impact: Encourages mutual vulnerability and growth.
4.	Scenario: "Let’s learn how to listen to each other without defensiveness."
	Explanation: Focuses on transforming communication patterns.
	Relationship Impact: Builds trust and emotional safety.
5.	Scenario: "What beliefs about marriage are we holding that might be limiting
           us?"
	Explanation: Questions assumptions to enable paradigm shifts.
	Relationship Impact: Opens new possibilities for connection and growth.

Cheers!! To Second Order Changes. KB

Kevin Brough – Ascend Counseling & Wellness – Ascendcw.com – 435.688.1111 – kevin@ascendcw.com

December 2, 2014

Attachment Style

Why do Attachment Styles affect our relationships?

Experience with early caregivers forms a working model, or RELATIONSHIP SCHEMA that impacts later relationships.

Secure Working Model

  • Others are dependable, trustworthy, and supportive (benefit of the doubt).
  • I am worthy of other people’s support and love.

62% are SECURELY ATTACHED:

As a Child

  • Mother as a safe base.
  • Upset when she leaves.
  • Go to her lovingly when she returns.

As an Adult

I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me.

Insecure Working Model

  • Others are expected to be undependable, untrustworthy, and UN-supportive.
  • I am unworthy of other people’s support and love.

23% are AVOIDANT:

As a Child

  • Initially do not seek proximity to the mother.
  • Very little distress upon separation.
  • Avoid/ignore her when she returns.

As an Adult

I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, others want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.

15% are RESISTANT (AMBIVALENT):

As a Child

  • Preoccupied with mother (Clingy).
  • Great distress when the mother leaves
  • Simultaneously seek close contact but also hit and kick (punishment).

As an Adult

I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn’t really love me or won’t want to stay with me. I want to get very close to my partner, and this sometimes scares people away.

HMMM? Something to think about.

Awareness provides fertile ground for Transformation!